… America is vast, largely empty and often lonely. Roughly 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, covering just 3 percent of the overall landmass. We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K.

We could use some more people. Make that a lot more.

Obviously, all those potential immigrants out there around the world are just itching to move to the middle of nowhere rather than, say, the Los Angeles Megaloplex. After all, immigrants to Australia always pass up expensive Sydney for the elbow room of Alice Springs. And whoever heard of an immigrant to Canada wanting to live in overcrowded Vancouver when he could move to Medicine Hat?

And America has lots of laws and mechanisms for forcing immigrants to live in underpopulated places rather than along side the 101 freeway? Right? I’m sure we must …

… America’s immigration crisis right now is that we don’t have enough immigrants.

Consider some facts.

First: The U.S. fertility rate has fallen to a record low. In May, The Times reported that women “had nearly 500,000 fewer babies than in 2007, despite the fact that there were an estimated 7 percent more women in their prime childbearing years.”

And of course, the low native fertility rates in immigrant-thick places in America have nothing to do with immigrants bidding up housing costs, bidding down wages, and stressing public schools.

… Third: The Federal Reserve has reported labor shortages in multiple industries throughout the country. That inhibits business growth. Nor are the shortages only a matter of missing “skills”: The New American Economy think tank estimates that the number of farm workers fell by 20 percent between 2002 and 2014, accounting for $3 billion a year in revenue losses.

What Mr. Stephens is trying to say is: Crops are rotting in the fields. Why can’t you people grasp the cataclysmicness of that?

Fourth: Much of rural or small-town America is emptying out. In hundreds of rural counties, more people are dying than are being born, according to the Department of Agriculture. The same Trumpian conservatives who claim to want to save the American heartland from the fabled Latin American Horde are guaranteeing conditions that over time will turn the heartland into a wasteland.

Raj Chetty’s 2015 study of the best places economically to raise a family if you are working class was dominated at the top of the list by heartland rural counties, often with declining populations due to increase farm productivity. In contrast, the bottom of the list as the worst places to raise a family economically included many fast-growing counties with big Hispanic influxes, such in the Carolinas.

Fifth: The immigrant share (including the undocumented) of the U.S. population is not especially large: About 13.5 percent, high by recent history but below its late 19th century peak of 14.8 percent. In Israel, the share is 22.6 percent …

So no more kvetching about Israel not taking it’s fair share of immigrants. Israel has lots of immigrants.

And Israel’s immigrants are very diverse. Some are from Minsk, while others are from Pinsk.

And not all of Israel’s immigrants are distant relatives of Ariel Sharon. Some of them are distant inlaws of Ariel Sharon.

Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime. These are the kind of attributes Republicans claim to admire.

… If anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools, then opposition to immigration is the conservatism of morons.

Only complete morons find anything funny about the horrifying fact that CROPS ARE ROTTING IN THE FIELDS.

… In a nation of immigrants, it’s un-American.

I’ll be accused of wanting open borders. Subtract terrorists, criminals, violent fanatics and political extremists from the mix, and I plead guilty to wanting more-open borders. Come on in. There’s more than enough room in this broad and fruitful land of the free.

And if you find anything dubious about Mr. Stephens’ highly intellectual arguments, such as his raising awareness of the Farm Worker Shortage, then you are a moron.

Africa needs more immigrants. I suggest Stephens and his kind to emigrate to Africa and invest there to build the economy.

Read More

ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.

AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime.

So the trick is to make sure that immigrants don’t have children……

Fourth: Much of rural or small-town America is emptying out. In hundreds of rural counties, more people are dying than are being born, according to the Department of Agriculture. The same Trumpian conservatives who claim to want to save the American heartland from the fabled Latin American Horde are guaranteeing conditions that over time will turn the heartland into a wasteland.

Which is better? A thinly populated heartland that contains mostly Anglo-Americans? Or a thickly populated heartland that contains vast numbers of Latinx……

Fifth: The immigrant share (including the undocumented) of the U.S. population is not especially large: About 13.5 percent, high by recent history but below its late 19th century peak of 14.8 percent.

Yeah, and just look at what a low-achieving place the USA was during the low immigration interval of 1924-1965....All we did was build the atomic bomb, defeat the Japanese in the Pacific, create Information Theory, produce great films (Citizen Kane, Red River, The Searchers, The Maltese Falcon, The Women, etc), write great works of literature (The Great Gatsby, The Big Sleep, Absalom, Absalom!, A Farewell to Arms, etc), break the Sound Barrier, invent the laser, .....

If only we had had more Latinx....Who knows what we might have accomplished.....

bored identity would really like to know what kind of Moronic Fools™ y'all have to be not to recognize that immigrants, i.e., Somalis— legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans because Somalis being...more church-going:

What about all the talk we hear about an increasingly automated economy? They tell us a number of jobs will be eliminated in the future. Guys like Musk and Zuckerberg are pushing a universal basic income scheme because they say robots will displace millions of workers who will have no other means of support.

But do we need more labor, that is the question. Or does he care about wages, i.e., American living standards? Or only his own?

By the way, I like the way the fall elections are shaping up.

Re: labor

What about all the talk we hear about an increasingly automated economy? They tell us a number of jobs will be eliminated in the future. Guys like Musk and Zuckerberg are pushing a universal basic income scheme because they say robots will displace millions of workers who will have no other means of support.

TL;DR: He has a decent job. His wife paid $6,000 to smuggle their youngest child (leaving the other three back in Honduras) into the States against his wishes, was not separated from her child, and is now claiming “political asylum”. That is, her asylum case is bullshit and she endangered her child to emotionally blackmail the authorities because her middle-class-for-Honduras existence just wasn’t good enough.

Exactly. And next come the tearful pleas for "family reunification" which will bring husband with their three kids in tow across as well.

Oh, and husband claims that although he had heard her talk about leaving for the United States for a better life, he allegedly was not aware that she had left until he saw her picture in the news. Right. She traveled 1800 miles and forked out $6000--where did she come up with that kind of dough? And without his being aware that she had it?--for a coyote and he claims to have been ignorant of the whole scheme??? Bullshot.

These people are gaming the system and liberals, basking in their self-congratulatory smugness are either too gullible or traitorous to see through it.

Many times msm tv news show an entire family of four, as being so poor and living lives in abject poverty in mexico, and then also state how said poor Mexicans seeking better pay/jobs/lives etc had to Pay some Mexican cayote smuggler guy $40,000 for family to get smuggled into usa.

How many Pesos equals $40,000 us dollars value eh? How swell can so much us dollars create a life of Reilly back in mexico?

It seems for past 20 years or so, that Mexican illegals and in cahoots with every msm have an agenda to out lie and out scam jews, and become number one liars and scammers so to displace jews from their top status position as such.

… America is vast, largely empty and often lonely. Roughly 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, covering just 3 percent of the overall landmass. We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K.

We could use some more people. Make that a lot more.

“We?”

Who the hell is this “we,” Mr. Stephens? I just so happen to be one of the “lonely” critters in the “vast, largely empty” landmass that’s not part of your urbanized 3%.

The population density of my town is 38 per square kilometer, and I find it plenty crowded. In fact, I’d like to find a place with a population density maybe a third or a quarter of that. You can let all the immigrants you want into your country — Israel. I don’t want any more in mine.

I grew up in a nation of 200 million. Now it’s 320 million. I don’t need any more immigrants for anything — period.

Who the hell is this “we,” Mr. Stephens? I just so happen to be one of the “lonely” critters in the “vast, largely empty” landmass that’s not part of your urbanized 3%.

This is a key point that people need to be made to understand. People like Bret Stephens are not part of 'we'. They are a hostile, alien people who seek to disenfranchise us in our own home.

Wide-open, empty spaces are part of America's patrimony. A desire to turn the whole country into a sweaty, urban hell-hole is un-American. It isn't who we are. The real we, that is, not fake wes who write for the New York Times.

Stephens is advocating destroying pristine natural wilderness as per this screed. Stephens by his own terms thinks that population density is always a good thing. And in such a zero sum game, nature a bad thing. Tin Pan Alley can make a few sheckels by re-releasing the song about paving paradise to put up a parking lot, or at least a bike rack.

What Stephens and the total GDP crowd always ignore is the standard of living slipping. A family of 5 from Central America will in fact add to GDP as a total, but on a per capita reduce it. Said family so going to consume more goods and services than it can ever hope to produce. And by every measure it gets worse in succeeding generations.

Further, said family of 5 is not going to settle in some rural town along the New York State Thruway, but in NYC. Because the jobs they can get-food service, cheap construction, domestic service- will be to serve the likes of hipster douchebags like Brett Stephens. While at the same time they will consume government services more readily available there. Neat trick by the urban elite; knock down the costs of their bottom lines, and not only screw working blue collars out of jobs, but socialize the costs.

Specifically, "we" is the Jews, pro-immigration fanatics from the far left to the neoconservatives, surely not the tens of millions of working- and middle-class whites who voted for Trump. Abstractly, "we" is the "proposition nation," America as an "idea" or "creed."

Hey Stephens, We're full. Only a select few wealthy, globalist, open borders airheads like stephens can afford to buy their way out of the devastating impacts of overimmigration, or otherwise avoid those impacts. More crime, more traffic, increased housing costs, more 'diversity' in neighborhoods where stephens and his ilk don't live.

Don't forget the decreasing trust in diverse societies and increases in crimes like identity theft. Everyone has noticed how difficult it is today to make purchases over $100 with a credit card, and to transact many other financial processes because they are being gamed and ripped off by immigrants (there I said it).

Interesting piece. The 509 page 2016 book which was the source of those tables is available at http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2016/09/0922_immigrant-economics-full-report.pdf

In particular, see Tables 8-12 on page 341. Underlying those Table 2 numbers is a great deal of variation by age.

It is interesting to see how much the numbers change between recent and all immigrants. Especially since I believe all is inclusive of recent. Was that the effect of a change in immigration policy or something else?

If I understand correctly (basing this on footnote 34 on page 339), the period of immigration used is 1994-2013.

Even @EconEconomics gets shelled on their own polls on this now. It’s over. No first world democracy will vote for mass immigration. It can only happen via non-democratic means. https://t.co/o4zVlNiTEY

Seriously underpopulated are we? So does the USA have 330 million people now–roughly twice what it had when it was a generally civil society–or does it not?
Guh…imagine a paper with both Bret Stephens and David Brooks on its op-ed pages. And some of you wonder why so many of us despise Republicans.

The whole open borders cheer section, from NYT, to Cato, to the Economist, etc. must just be working off of muscle memory now. They can't even believe their own stuff anymore, can they? Stephens knows there's no way to assign immigrants to empty places, and that they'll congregate in the same crowded conurbations they do now.

Cato tweeted recently about how few hours an average worker needs to work to buy a color TV today, compared with 50 years ago. They never do the same comparison for housing, healthcare, or education.

Dante cleverly devised various grades of Hell tailored to the kinds of villainy that their inhabitants had committed while in earthly life.

If Dante should expand his hellish categories, there will be one for Bret Stephens and people who advocate as he does:

It will contain wall-to-wall people. No empty spaces. No way to escape from the noise and crowding. Nowhere to be alone with one's thoughts.

Stephens lives on the 277th floor of a highrise with three dozen apartments on each floor, and scenic views of hundreds of other residential towers. When he ventures out of his flat of Tokyo-like dimensions, he occasionally hears a few words in a language he understands.

Bret Stephens will be forced to write 25,000 words a day for the New York Times but no one will pay the slightest attention to what he says.

Stephens (why is he hiding behind a Welsh surname?) has about the same respect for white American goyim as a three card monte dealer does for random pedestrians walking down a street.

And make no mistake, to continuously maintain the sustained level of dishonesty in his writings as he does requires an enormous amount of hatred and loathing in his heart for white American gentiles.

Since no one with a straight face could possibly claim that Stephens’ agitprop is bona fide news or journalism, why can’t Stephens be jailed as an unregistered foreign agent of Israel and global Zionism?

bored identity is also delightfully eager to speculate that, because of the all atrocities committed by his Welshovik Brethren, guilt-driven Stephens will start advocating for fast and unconditional migration of millions of Real Russkies to the USA.....you know, for kids... and the Orthodox Churchocaust:

… America is vast, largely empty and often lonely. Roughly 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, covering just 3 percent of the overall landmass. We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K.

We could use some more people. Make that a lot more.

"We?"

Who the hell is this "we," Mr. Stephens? I just so happen to be one of the "lonely" critters in the "vast, largely empty" landmass that's not part of your urbanized 3%.

The population density of my town is 38 per square kilometer, and I find it plenty crowded. In fact, I'd like to find a place with a population density maybe a third or a quarter of that. You can let all the immigrants you want into your country -- Israel. I don't want any more in mine.

I grew up in a nation of 200 million. Now it's 320 million. I don't need any more immigrants for anything -- period.

“We?”

Who the hell is this “we,” Mr. Stephens?

When dealing with Bret Stephens, “We” simply means the people who he expects to volunteer their sons and daughters for the next War of Liberation that Bret Stephens insists upon in the Middle East.

Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime.

So the trick is to make sure that immigrants don't have children......

Fourth: Much of rural or small-town America is emptying out. In hundreds of rural counties, more people are dying than are being born, according to the Department of Agriculture. The same Trumpian conservatives who claim to want to save the American heartland from the fabled Latin American Horde are guaranteeing conditions that over time will turn the heartland into a wasteland.

Which is better? A thinly populated heartland that contains mostly Anglo-Americans? Or a thickly populated heartland that contains vast numbers of Latinx......

Fifth: The immigrant share (including the undocumented) of the U.S. population is not especially large: About 13.5 percent, high by recent history but below its late 19th century peak of 14.8 percent.

Yeah, and just look at what a low-achieving place the USA was during the low immigration interval of 1924-1965….All we did was build the atomic bomb, defeat the Japanese in the Pacific, create Information Theory, produce great films (Citizen Kane, Red River, The Searchers, The Maltese Falcon, The Women, etc), write great works of literature (The Great Gatsby, The Big Sleep, Absalom, Absalom!, A Farewell to Arms, etc), break the Sound Barrier, invent the laser, …..

If only we had had more Latinx….Who knows what we might have accomplished…..

Maybe East Asians are less likely to commit crime than the average American. If he’s talking about Hispanics, they’re only less likely to commit crime than blacks. That’s a pretty low bar. By lumping Hispanic and black immigrants in with Asian and white immigrants, he’s juking the stats.
Subtract terrorists, criminals, violent fanatics and political extremists from the mix, and I plead guilty to wanting more-open borders.

Does Stephens offer any suggestions as to how we weed out prospective terrorists, criminals, violent fanatics and political extremists from the mix? How about no immigrants from Muslim and shithole countries, as Trump would like? Sounds like a good start.

US in the middle of that list. Places like Brazil are much less densely populated than the US. Countries like Libya are at the very low end of the list in terms of people/area. If the issue is just unused land, Libya should be a top destination not US.

Next, Europe has very densely population in terms of people/area. Africa is sparsely populated. Also within all countries, people are moving away from undesirable cities to mega cities or suburbs around those mega cities. In the US, people are fleeing places like Youngstown and moving to Austin, TX. In Italy, people flee these tiny remote villages and want to all live in Milan and Florence. In Africa, people are fleeing the countryside and moving to mega cities like Kinshasa. In China, people migrate from sparsely populated towns to highly populated places like Singapore (separate country of course).

Guys like Bret Stephens are pushing the policy of more immigration to US + Europe, and just throwing any argument and every argument that they can think of to justify that. And when arguments like population/area stats seem to point in the other direction, he just moves on to the next rationalization to find something that will stick.

Don't criticize the man. Accept his argument at face value. Since the USA is underpopulated, and that's a bad thing, we can only accept people from countries whose population density is higher than ours.

However, because climate change is also a bad thing, and carbon emissions "cause" it, and Americans use more energy than a lot of people, and we surely don't want to increase carbon emissions, we can only accept people from countries whose carbon emissions per capita are within 10% of ours. There. A perfectly consistent immigration system that will permit, maybe, Bahrainis to move here.

… America is vast, largely empty and often lonely. Roughly 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, covering just 3 percent of the overall landmass. We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K.

We could use some more people. Make that a lot more.

"We?"

Who the hell is this "we," Mr. Stephens? I just so happen to be one of the "lonely" critters in the "vast, largely empty" landmass that's not part of your urbanized 3%.

The population density of my town is 38 per square kilometer, and I find it plenty crowded. In fact, I'd like to find a place with a population density maybe a third or a quarter of that. You can let all the immigrants you want into your country -- Israel. I don't want any more in mine.

I grew up in a nation of 200 million. Now it's 320 million. I don't need any more immigrants for anything -- period.

Who the hell is this “we,” Mr. Stephens? I just so happen to be one of the “lonely” critters in the “vast, largely empty” landmass that’s not part of your urbanized 3%.

This is a key point that people need to be made to understand. People like Bret Stephens are not part of ‘we’. They are a hostile, alien people who seek to disenfranchise us in our own home.

Wide-open, empty spaces are part of America’s patrimony. A desire to turn the whole country into a sweaty, urban hell-hole is un-American. It isn’t who we are. The real we, that is, not fake wes who write for the New York Times.

There is no shortage of people who could work in America, they have just dropped out of the labor force. Simply walk by Los Angeles City Hall on a given afternoon and marvel at the groups of grown men lying about City Hall Park.

How is this not obvious to our policymakers that there are millions of potential workers right here in America?

I suggest we invest time and money in bringing our own citizens back online. It won’t be easy, but it is preferable to Stephens’ plans and likely more sustainable.

As for the rest of Stephens arguments, he obviously is not a moron so why is he making references to Israel which has some of the strictest immigration laws of any developed country? Is it possible that he can be so removed from reality to think he is making a compelling argument? I assume he is just trolling and most of his readers are in on the joke.

And by the way, wages in Japan are up while real estate is becoming affordable. In the long run, Japan will turn the corner and prosper. Critically, Japan will still be Japan.

The same cannot be said of the United States. I think we will be lucky if we can maintain a Brazilian level of functionality within the next forty years. Unlike Brazil, the United States lacks the social cohesion or national identity needed to confront our pending monumental challenges.

Liberalism is truly a mental illness. Everything is a “crisis” to these libtards, and every single one of their crisis is entirely of their own making. America’s real crisis is its media being saturated with morons like Bret Stephens.

Stephens, a Pullitzer Prize winner, is a (so-called) ‘climate-denier’. Or rather, in his own words, a climate agnostic. A perfectly reasonable view in my opinion. But it is remarkable that he is still a celebrated member of the commentariat despite holding this one heretical view. It just goes to show how seriously the globo-homo power-elite really take ‘climate change’. As long as you are reliable on everything else, they can let that one slide.

Good observation, Mr. Anon, about Stephens being a “climate denier.” I predict that he will find an opportunity/excuse to mitigate that position, or change it entirely, in the future.

You’re right that people don’t really care about the climate issue—except (I would qualify) as a badge of “elite opinion.” The more a position becomes deemed déclassé, the less our elites want to be associated with it. The arguments they marshal in support of any position are mostly fungible, and can be replaced or redirected by the disclosure of one “new” “fact” that suddenly persuades the former heretic of the deep truth of “elite” orthodoxy.

That fact that the change of opinion is accompanied by “strange new respect” and invitations to better parties is the carrot elite institutions deploy, and that Stephens, Brooks, and others are eager to snatch up.

Gosh, and is there anything those immigrants have in common? Some underlying similarity in any one aspect? Couldn’t be. I’m sure they are every creed and color. How wonderfully diverse that country will become thanks to all that immigration.

Gosh, and is there anything those immigrants have in common? Some underlying similarity in any one aspect? Couldn’t be. I’m sure they are every creed and color. How wonderfully diverse that country will become thanks to all that immigration.

And think of how many Semites they could get if only they opened their doors? Those poor, life-giving, downtrodden, persecuted Semites... Israel's immigration policy is an anti-Semitic hate crime!

And what fraction of that 22.6 percent is the result of the post-Soviet influx? The expulsion Jews from the Arab world?

The point is, you can always point to some country like Israel (which is a huge outlier anyway) and say, "Look, they have more immigrants". But what's relevant is that these were basically one-time events. They're not sustained, year-after-year flows. They look a lot more like the traditional immigration patterns in the US, where things were high for a while, then they slammed the doors. To say nothing of the Jewish angle.

What about all the talk we hear about an increasingly automated economy? They tell us a number of jobs will be eliminated in the future. Guys like Musk and Zuckerberg are pushing a universal basic income scheme because they say robots will displace millions of workers who will have no other means of support.

By the way, I like the way the fall elections are shaping up.

Can you elaborate?

Agreed. On one hand you got your (((Zucks))) talking about the future with no human work and on the other hand wanting millions a year of no-skill immigrants to fill jobs.

Fifth: The immigrant share (including the undocumented) of the U.S. population is not especially large: About 13.5 percent, high by recent history but below its late 19th century peak of 14.8 percent.

Yeah, and just look at what a low-achieving place the USA was during the low immigration interval of 1924-1965....All we did was build the atomic bomb, defeat the Japanese in the Pacific, create Information Theory, produce great films (Citizen Kane, Red River, The Searchers, The Maltese Falcon, The Women, etc), write great works of literature (The Great Gatsby, The Big Sleep, Absalom, Absalom!, A Farewell to Arms, etc), break the Sound Barrier, invent the laser, .....

If only we had had more Latinx....Who knows what we might have accomplished.....

13.5% of 320M = 43,200,000
14.8% of 63M = 9,324,000

Per Wikipedia the US Population on the 1890 census was 62,979,766
Estimating the current US Population at around 320M, that is probably too low.

So the immigration population is 4.63 higher now.

This is even assuming his 13.5% is correct. I suspect it is too low and the 14.8% might be too high.

Isn’t the Davos narrative supposed to be that Trump won’t be able to bring back the jobs because robots are going to do all the work?

Also, why doesn’t Bret Stephens disentangle different concepts when talking about things like “entrepreneurship”. I suspect being an entrepreneur in the case of most illegal immigrants from Mexico doesn’t mean founding a Fortune 500 company.

The once stodgy and restrained Economist has of course joined the rest of the Elite Consensus (and Antifa) in calling for the elimination of all national borders. They are currently sponsoring a “Debate” on the subject:

Of course, this means that people are free to choose where they live, but apparently they have no right to determine the rules of said country they choose to live in. Like maybe…. restricting immigration. Actually, we all know this means no national border restrictions, but strict zoning rules, whether in Zurich or Malibu, would of course still be permitted for some reason.

Anyway, the “pro-open borders” debater is Jackie Stevens of Northwestern University. Like many on the Left and the Right, Jackie Stevens views open borders as literally the abolitionist movement of our age. Borders must be abolished as an oppressive restriction on some sort of John Rawlsian ideal of a just society or something.

The ironic part is that the proponent of open borders has been banned from her own campus over her political extremism/activism and allegations of veiled physical threats. So much for open borders, poor Jackie Stevens cannot even manage to have an open campus.

Jewish newspaper. Jewish columnist. Idolizes Israel. Condescending. Claims superior morals and intelligence. Cites anti-Semitism. Lectures us on what is un-American. Makes comparison to Israeli immigration, but skips the part about Israel only letting Jews in. Doesn’t mention Hitler, but trashes Trump as if he were Hitler.

Jewish newspaper. Jewish columnist. Idolizes Israel. Condescending. Claims superior morals and intelligence. Cites anti-Semitism. Lectures us on what is un-American. Makes comparison to Israeli immigration, but skips the part about Israel only letting Jews in. Doesn’t mention Hitler, but trashes Trump as if he were Hitler.

Every article like this kosherized clowns, just causes me to buy more ammo. Then I alert my rural white neighbors to such articles and infos and agendas, then they too go buy more ammo.

Because America is far past any voting or political methods of a real Fix ever happening now. So that leaves just One major option. And the more these lib and neocon and kosher clowns keep pushing, the faster it all is going to break out. I sure am very glad I was not born into any of named clown groups. For once they start it all off...They will run and find no places to hide from 50+ Million royally pissed off real americans that created and maintain this nation of America. It will turn a typical Boot out event into a Take out event.

And with each day that passes now, most every of the nations biggest population group of Boomers, has less and less to lose. This has obviously been a huge miscalculation on the part of the clowns and kosherized fools eh....I think they long ago planned these agendas to wait until most boomers grew too old to fight etc....But changes in lifestyles and medical etc. has created what used to be an too old man or woman of past eras, into a much more youthful group in general, even though being same old person ages as in past eras.

In other words, unlike every of the 109 prior nationwide Boot-Outs the kosherized have experienced in past 1800 years, this time around they will likely discover that they have bit off way more than they can ever jew. And so too will those African and Mexican ghetto dwellers and gangbangers once they start the ball rolling. Most every rural White I know of is chomping at the bit, and have been this way a long while now.

It’s apparent that the current liberal political philosophy goes something like this:

“Hey, let’s massively overpopulate our country just so we can lock in a Democratic winning vote forever! Then we’ll can vote ourselves all the social services that Sweden has! Whoop!”

Except that massively overpopulated countries don’t have a proper social welfare safety net. They can’t afford it because they’re overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of poor people who can’t pay anything in taxes, which is needed to fund the safety net. India has around 400 million people who are considered dirt poor, and they don’t generate enough tax revenue for a safety net, and the Indian middle class doesn’t generate enough tax revenue to provide a net for both themselves and 400 million poor people, who are a millstone around their society’s neck and an unsolvable problem.

China does not offer social welfare benefits to people who live in rural areas, only those who are middle-class dwellers in cities. There are about 600 million in rural China outside the any sort of safety net. Their middle class cannot afford to pay for the burden of all those poor people. Yet American liberals, who have no clue, want to flood our country with lots of poor Hispanics and other third worlders, and liberals think we will benefit from this.

The US used to have better benefits, back when our population was smaller. Companies offered their workers healthcare benefits as a hiring perk. This was because labor was in high demand. When an employer really, really wants you, they will cough up. Smaller populations have more bargaining chips available to them. Larger populations have to take what they can get because they don’t have leverage. If their boss tells them to work long hours for low pay and like it, that’s what they have to do because they’ll just starve to death with no job.

I know liberals have no grasp of Supply and Demand from Economics 101, but their feeble minds ought to be able to remember their lessons in Ecology and the whole concept of ‘overstraining resources.’

When a city slicker like Bret Stephens drives through the countryside and sees a forest he doesn't say "there's a tree farm" (for the harvest of which we already have the necessary labor and machines). Instead he sees a potential 40 acres and a mule farm for an immigrant family.

Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime.

So the trick is to make sure that immigrants don't have children......

Fourth: Much of rural or small-town America is emptying out. In hundreds of rural counties, more people are dying than are being born, according to the Department of Agriculture. The same Trumpian conservatives who claim to want to save the American heartland from the fabled Latin American Horde are guaranteeing conditions that over time will turn the heartland into a wasteland.

Which is better? A thinly populated heartland that contains mostly Anglo-Americans? Or a thickly populated heartland that contains vast numbers of Latinx......

bored identity would really like to know what kind of Moronic Fools™ y’all have to be not to recognize that immigrants, i.e., Somalis— legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans because Somalis being…more church-going:

bored identity would like to moronically-foolish notice that, besides their booming church attendance, Somalis are also being at least a $100 million times a year more entrepreneurial and far less likely to commit crime than native-born Minnesotans:

We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K.

And they have the housing prices to prove it.

It’s pointless to take this kind of “argument” too seriously, but in passing someone might point out to Mr. Stephens that in the US — west of the 100th meridian — it becomes more or less impossible to farm without resorting to irrigation.

In an increasingly crowded world, “vast, largely empty and often lonely” spaces generally remain so because there’s very little water for plants, animals, or people.

Your characterization that farming west of the 100th meridian requires irrigation is mostly correct, but also farming south of the 35th parallel in the East will also become more irrigation intensive as climate change accelerates. Soil moisture is decreasing as soil temperatures increase.

Let us assume we have enough water to irrigate (we don't) and enough electric generating capacity for the increased power requirements (we don't) and enough diesel fuel to power the farm machinery and propane to dry the grains (we don't). Do we want to destroy every last square foot of wilderness and turn our land into one big factory farm in the name of progress?

Not only do we not have enough fertile land, fuels and water to increase crop production, but as the heat increases, water scarcity worsens and fuels become less plentiful, our current carrying capacity will decrease. Perhaps Mr. Stephens wishes to accelerate the demise of white culture by ensuring that white males are culled first in favor of the best and brightest from Guatemala.

Gosh, and is there anything those immigrants have in common? Some underlying similarity in any one aspect? Couldn't be. I'm sure they are every creed and color. How wonderfully diverse that country will become thanks to all that immigration.

Gosh, and is there anything those immigrants have in common? Some underlying similarity in any one aspect? Couldn’t be. I’m sure they are every creed and color. How wonderfully diverse that country will become thanks to all that immigration.

And think of how many Semites they could get if only they opened their doors? Those poor, life-giving, downtrodden, persecuted Semites… Israel’s immigration policy is an anti-Semitic hate crime!

Without wishing to take issue with your main point, ironically Alice Springs has a slightly higher percentage of foreign-born residents than the Australian average (35 per cent compared with 33 per cent). It’s a mystery to me, as with rare exceptions migrants can choose anywhere in the country to live, and Alice Springs is (by all accounts) rather like one of those unpleasant places in Africa that President Trump described so pithily.

At any rate, the large majority of migrants to Australia choose to settle in either Sydney or Melbourne, as the crowded roads (much like Mishra’s picture in the post above) and soaring property prices attest. Nearly half (43 per cent) of Sydney residents were born overseas, and the corresponding number of Melbourne is 40 per cent.

This year there has been some argument for lower levels of immigration without the reflexive screams of “Racist!”, but the consensus among the elites (including the leaders of both major parties) is still for ever greater numbers, and damn the consequences for those of us who are already here.

ironically Alice Springs has a slightly higher percentage of foreign-born residents than the Australian average (35 per cent compared with 33 per cent). It’s a mystery to me

For explication of this mystery, do a survey of the environs around Alice Springs, noting all the … ahh … foreign installations, shall we say. I'm sure there are plenty of foreigners in the Alice. Not a lot of Somalis or Mexicans, though.

For a little more explication, have a look at a map of Oz noting the vast expanses of "aboriginal tribal land" that you need a permit to enter. Ask yourself: are those millions of square km really fenced off from the public so that a few hundred natives can hunt the kangaroo in peace?

I spent a few weeks with some friends who had moved to "the Alice " a couple of decades ago and was rather surprised by the large number of non Australian born people there and nearby . A number were Americans who were working or had retired from the nearby Pine Gap intelligence station . I recall talking to a retired couple originally from Arizona who said the climates were similar .
Others I recall ( I went to a few social functions ) were Dutch , German and various European who liked the "Outback " ambience

“We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K.”

Stephens should look at the list of the top 20 richest countries in the world. He might be surprised who is and isn’t on it.

Eighteen of the top twenty richest countries have populations that are majority ethnically European. One of the others is Singapore and another, Qatar, is an oil state. The highest ranked Latin America country, Uruguay, is ranked #45.

Eight of the twenty richest are countries with low population densities – the US, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. All those countries but New Zealand are richer than far larger, more densely populated countries like Germany, Japan, the UK, Spain, Israel, South Korea, Italy, Austria and France.

IOW, there is a pretty damn clear positive correlation between a nation’s per capita income and lower population density. The more people you try to stuff inside a nation, the fewer natural resources there are, per capita, to go around. The nation’s natural wealth gets diluted. There is no reason to dilute our wealth even more by filling full it of people.

Despite being mostly temperate and fertile, the UK has been dependent on imported food for at least 200 years, due to sheer weight of population. And the UK population was 'only' 13 million or so in 1800.

Economically, this has had a profound effect on the UK, forcing it into the perennial troubles of trade deficit problems - the constant limitation on UK economic growth rates.

If Republicans weren’t the Stupid Party, they would be putting out television advertisements highlighting quotes from articles like this. You just know if the shoe was on the other foot, it would be in every Democratic campaign ad for the next five years.

America is vast, largely empty and often lonely. Roughly 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, covering just 3 percent of the overall landmass. We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K.

If Robert Putnam’s work is to be believed, those 80 percent of Americans living in urban areas are pretty lonely and atomized despite being surrounded by millions of other people.

Neoconservatism sometimes seems almost like affirmative action for halfwits like Stephens.

We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K.

And they have the housing prices to prove it.

It's pointless to take this kind of "argument" too seriously, but in passing someone might point out to Mr. Stephens that in the US -- west of the 100th meridian -- it becomes more or less impossible to farm without resorting to irrigation.

In an increasingly crowded world, "vast, largely empty and often lonely" spaces generally remain so because there's very little water for plants, animals, or people.

Your characterization that farming west of the 100th meridian requires irrigation is mostly correct, but also farming south of the 35th parallel in the East will also become more irrigation intensive as climate change accelerates. Soil moisture is decreasing as soil temperatures increase.

Let us assume we have enough water to irrigate (we don’t) and enough electric generating capacity for the increased power requirements (we don’t) and enough diesel fuel to power the farm machinery and propane to dry the grains (we don’t). Do we want to destroy every last square foot of wilderness and turn our land into one big factory farm in the name of progress?

Not only do we not have enough fertile land, fuels and water to increase crop production, but as the heat increases, water scarcity worsens and fuels become less plentiful, our current carrying capacity will decrease. Perhaps Mr. Stephens wishes to accelerate the demise of white culture by ensuring that white males are culled first in favor of the best and brightest from Guatemala.

Guh...imagine a paper with both Bret Stephens and David Brooks on its op-ed pages. And some of you wonder why so many of us despise Republicans.

The whole open borders cheer section, from NYT, to Cato, to the Economist, etc. must just be working off of muscle memory now. They can’t even believe their own stuff anymore, can they? Stephens knows there’s no way to assign immigrants to empty places, and that they’ll congregate in the same crowded conurbations they do now.

Cato tweeted recently about how few hours an average worker needs to work to buy a color TV today, compared with 50 years ago. They never do the same comparison for housing, healthcare, or education.

But, surely, the amount of food consumed per American hasn’t fallen by 20%, and dare I say it neither has the incidence of obesity.

Surely, in sheer economic terms it can only be a good thing. The one principle generally accepted as ‘true’ by all economic historians worth their salt is that the discovery of agriculture – the process by which surplus output produced by the farming sector supports the entirety of the remainder of industrial production – is *the* key of wealth creation.

“Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime. These are the kind of attributes Republicans claim to admire.”

A really shameless rhetorical trick that’s frankly insulting to the intelligence of the right. Also blatantly racist by the standards of the left, with the obvious allusions to black Americans with the crime and wedlock remarks. So by any measure, this article is #deplorable

That's the sleight-of-hand that these demons play. Blacks are so overwhelmingly dysfunctional that almost any immigrant group seems preferable in comparison. But of course we are not trading our blacks for these other groups (not that any country would want them). It's like dealing with a bad odor by spraying a toxic "air freshener" instead of ventilating the space.

All of these silly, unintelligent bald assertions about the population density of the USAUSA compared to European nations are worthless.
Firstly, the Alaska effect is ignored.
Secondly, the extensive arid regions, deserts and semi deserts of the USA are ignored. Perhaps small scale settlement with irrigation is possible, but water shortage is the binding constraint.
Then you have the ‘badlands’ etc of the Midwest.
And you have extensive mountainous areas etc.

"We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K."

Stephens should look at the list of the top 20 richest countries in the world. He might be surprised who is and isn't on it.

Eighteen of the top twenty richest countries have populations that are majority ethnically European. One of the others is Singapore and another, Qatar, is an oil state. The highest ranked Latin America country, Uruguay, is ranked #45.

Eight of the twenty richest are countries with low population densities - the US, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. All those countries but New Zealand are richer than far larger, more densely populated countries like Germany, Japan, the UK, Spain, Israel, South Korea, Italy, Austria and France.

IOW, there is a pretty damn clear positive correlation between a nation's per capita income and lower population density. The more people you try to stuff inside a nation, the fewer natural resources there are, per capita, to go around. The nation's natural wealth gets diluted. There is no reason to dilute our wealth even more by filling full it of people.

Despite being mostly temperate and fertile, the UK has been dependent on imported food for at least 200 years, due to sheer weight of population. And the UK population was ‘only’ 13 million or so in 1800.

Economically, this has had a profound effect on the UK, forcing it into the perennial troubles of trade deficit problems – the constant limitation on UK economic growth rates.

Indeed. And now most of the UK's less densely populated offshoots - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA - are richer than the UK itself. All of them have far greater natural resources, per capita, to draw on for economic wealth than the UK does, and natural resources are (and probably always will be) a limiting factor in economic production. When they become scarce their value goes up, and those countries that own them grow richer. The only Middle Eastern nations ever to make it into the world's richest have done so only thanks to their oil wealth.

If you look at the richest countries per capita in the world they are basically either (a) tiny little city states that are often tax havens (Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, etc; or (b) the least densely populated countries with European-descended populations. I don't know about you, but I never would have guessed that Australia was richer than Germany, France, Japan, Israel, South Korea and Italy. Never.

Many or most Latin American countries are allegedly majority white. I have no idea the extent to which that is actually true or the extent to which those white populations include Indio admixture, but either way, for some reason, Latin American countries just plain damn don't do well. Their people are poor and their governments are corrupt.

The keys to maintaining a wealthy nation seem to be:1) keep your population density low2) keep your population European3) keep your population non-Latin

If Bret Stephens can come up with any significant counter-examples I would be more than happy to listen to him, even though he probably will have already had me deported by the time he can find one.

Without wishing to take issue with your main point, ironically Alice Springs has a slightly higher percentage of foreign-born residents than the Australian average (35 per cent compared with 33 per cent). It's a mystery to me, as with rare exceptions migrants can choose anywhere in the country to live, and Alice Springs is (by all accounts) rather like one of those unpleasant places in Africa that President Trump described so pithily.

At any rate, the large majority of migrants to Australia choose to settle in either Sydney or Melbourne, as the crowded roads (much like Mishra's picture in the post above) and soaring property prices attest. Nearly half (43 per cent) of Sydney residents were born overseas, and the corresponding number of Melbourne is 40 per cent.

This year there has been some argument for lower levels of immigration without the reflexive screams of "Racist!", but the consensus among the elites (including the leaders of both major parties) is still for ever greater numbers, and damn the consequences for those of us who are already here.

ironically Alice Springs has a slightly higher percentage of foreign-born residents than the Australian average (35 per cent compared with 33 per cent). It’s a mystery to me

For explication of this mystery, do a survey of the environs around Alice Springs, noting all the … ahh … foreign installations, shall we say. I’m sure there are plenty of foreigners in the Alice. Not a lot of Somalis or Mexicans, though.

For a little more explication, have a look at a map of Oz noting the vast expanses of “aboriginal tribal land” that you need a permit to enter. Ask yourself: are those millions of square km really fenced off from the public so that a few hundred natives can hunt the kangaroo in peace?

What about all the talk we hear about an increasingly automated economy? They tell us a number of jobs will be eliminated in the future. Guys like Musk and Zuckerberg are pushing a universal basic income scheme because they say robots will displace millions of workers who will have no other means of support.

By the way, I like the way the fall elections are shaping up.

Can you elaborate?

Guys like Musk and Zuckerberg are pushing a universal basic income scheme because they say robots will displace millions of workers who will have no other means of support.

The robots are gonna be pissed when all their income tax goes to support human layabouts.

“White working-class children have fallen behind because their families can “lack the aspiration and drive seen in many migrant communities,” according to Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector of schools in England.”

I note with some interest that the article doesn't mention anything about standardized test results, or specify which migrant communities are doing so well. Second, how objective are Ofsted ratings anyhow? Third, if working class whites are so stupid/lazy, why does poor, lily-white Northern Ireland routinely perform better than England, Wales and Scotland in academic achievement, as measured in both domestic and international testing?

Jewish newspaper. Jewish columnist. Idolizes Israel. Condescending. Claims superior morals and intelligence. Cites anti-Semitism. Lectures us on what is un-American. Makes comparison to Israeli immigration, but skips the part about Israel only letting Jews in. Doesn't mention Hitler, but trashes Trump as if he were Hitler.

These guys are getting very predictable.

Roger that.

But, you ‘re wrong because bored identity learned this about Mr. Stephens from McMuffinpedia:

“In addition to his neoconservative foreign policy opinions, Stephens is known for being part of the right-wing opposition to Donald Trump.”

NYT,WSJ,NBC News, and The Jerusalem Post would never hire a right-wing bandit-editor in chief to poison the well.

The harshest truth seems to be that this type of nonsense sells. I don’t get the idiots who are buying it nor do I fully understand how Brett Stephens can handle writing such rubbish (a New York Times sinecure must help), but the fact is that it does increase online subscriptions.

There is a huge market, it seems, of old maids (of both sexes and all ages), who derive immense comfort from reading articles that praise the benefits of immigration and diversity. I suspect that is who Stephens is targetting with this absurd article.

It is easy to forget that the NYT is actually a very popular newspaper, with a tremendous number of readers.

I wrote a German friend in Berlin when the Merkel invasion got up to speed asking if he was A-OK with that. He replied that he had a very reliable Turkish car mechanic. And the vast readership of the NYTimes sees illegals (="immigrants) not in the aggregate but individually.

ironically Alice Springs has a slightly higher percentage of foreign-born residents than the Australian average (35 per cent compared with 33 per cent). It’s a mystery to me

For explication of this mystery, do a survey of the environs around Alice Springs, noting all the … ahh … foreign installations, shall we say. I'm sure there are plenty of foreigners in the Alice. Not a lot of Somalis or Mexicans, though.

For a little more explication, have a look at a map of Oz noting the vast expanses of "aboriginal tribal land" that you need a permit to enter. Ask yourself: are those millions of square km really fenced off from the public so that a few hundred natives can hunt the kangaroo in peace?

I get a Christmas card from a distant relative, most years from the Beltway, some years from Alice Springs.

JEWS are a hostile element embedded within the WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire.

The WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire is using mass immigration as a demographic weapon against the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.

When the patriotic young men joined together to protect the Confederate monuments and statues in Virgina, they proudly and defiantly spoke these words together:

JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US

The proud young patriotic White men were giving notice to the anti-White JEWS that they are fully aware that anti-White JEWS push mass immigration in order to attack the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.

These young White Core American men know that anti-White JEWS are using mass immigration to push their evil plot of White Genocide.

Stephens (why is he hiding behind a Welsh surname?) has about the same respect for white American goyim as a three card monte dealer does for random pedestrians walking down a street.

And make no mistake, to continuously maintain the sustained level of dishonesty in his writings as he does requires an enormous amount of hatred and loathing in his heart for white American gentiles.

Since no one with a straight face could possibly claim that Stephens' agitprop is bona fide news or journalism, why can't Stephens be jailed as an unregistered foreign agent of Israel and global Zionism?

bored identity is also delightfully eager to speculate that, because of the all atrocities committed by his Welshovik Brethren, guilt-driven Stephens will start advocating for fast and unconditional migration of millions of Real Russkies to the USA…..you know, for kids… and the Orthodox Churchocaust:

Much as Steve coined the term “late Obama-age collapse,” I’d like to propose “The Great Clarification” for the Trump years, as the dominant theme, so far, has been one of unburdening. President Trump’s notorious habit of saying exactly what is in his head at any given moment seems to have convinced many of our political and media leaders to say out loud and in public things which they have long believed but previously preferred to conceal. Now they’re just letting it all hang out. I’ve remarked before about how this is almost Trump’s signature achievement — getting his opponents to spell out what they actually mean, stripped of all euphemism.

Pessimist that I am, I don’t think this bodes well for the future; when people take such uncompromising positions, it suggests that they can foresee no outcome in which they might need to walk back their previous statements. They expect either to crush or be crushed.

On the other hand, maybe I’m overestimating their capacity for shame. Public life is full of people who have been repeatedly, catastrophically wrong and are still out there lecturing the rest of us on How Things Should Be.

There is no shortage of people who could work in America, they have just dropped out of the labor force. Simply walk by Los Angeles City Hall on a given afternoon and marvel at the groups of grown men lying about City Hall Park.

How is this not obvious to our policymakers that there are millions of potential workers right here in America?

I suggest we invest time and money in bringing our own citizens back online. It won't be easy, but it is preferable to Stephens' plans and likely more sustainable.

As for the rest of Stephens arguments, he obviously is not a moron so why is he making references to Israel which has some of the strictest immigration laws of any developed country? Is it possible that he can be so removed from reality to think he is making a compelling argument? I assume he is just trolling and most of his readers are in on the joke.

And by the way, wages in Japan are up while real estate is becoming affordable. In the long run, Japan will turn the corner and prosper. Critically, Japan will still be Japan.

The same cannot be said of the United States. I think we will be lucky if we can maintain a Brazilian level of functionality within the next forty years. Unlike Brazil, the United States lacks the social cohesion or national identity needed to confront our pending monumental challenges.

And by the way, wages in Japan are up while real estate is becoming affordable. In the long run, Japan will turn the corner and prosper. Critically, Japan will still be Japan.

Oh, and businesses aren’t happy with half a million low-skilled foreign laborers.

From the article:

“Some 500,000 is not enough at all. Some people who don’t know about the reality (of the Japanese economy) must have just made up that figure,” Kimura told The Japan Times during an interview earlier this week.

“Over the next 100 years, Japan’s population will become something like 40 million (from the current 126 million). We definitely need foreign workers. We need young people who can support elderly people,” he said.

If one is to listen to these leaders, then Japanese would become a senile minority within their country in next country as there is a law of nature stating that the population of Japan must not go below 126 million. Hence 86 million new migrants must be brought in.

For instance, overdraft charges are a little higher. Overdrafts are small, unsecured loans, and only poor people ever abandon a bank account after an overdraft. Higher risk, higher fees. Welcome to life.

"We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K."

Stephens should look at the list of the top 20 richest countries in the world. He might be surprised who is and isn't on it.

Eighteen of the top twenty richest countries have populations that are majority ethnically European. One of the others is Singapore and another, Qatar, is an oil state. The highest ranked Latin America country, Uruguay, is ranked #45.

Eight of the twenty richest are countries with low population densities - the US, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. All those countries but New Zealand are richer than far larger, more densely populated countries like Germany, Japan, the UK, Spain, Israel, South Korea, Italy, Austria and France.

IOW, there is a pretty damn clear positive correlation between a nation's per capita income and lower population density. The more people you try to stuff inside a nation, the fewer natural resources there are, per capita, to go around. The nation's natural wealth gets diluted. There is no reason to dilute our wealth even more by filling full it of people.

IOW, there is a pretty damn clear positive correlation between a nation’s per capita income and lower population density.

Even, despite the fact that people try to rich places and thereby fill them up.

Without wishing to take issue with your main point, ironically Alice Springs has a slightly higher percentage of foreign-born residents than the Australian average (35 per cent compared with 33 per cent). It's a mystery to me, as with rare exceptions migrants can choose anywhere in the country to live, and Alice Springs is (by all accounts) rather like one of those unpleasant places in Africa that President Trump described so pithily.

At any rate, the large majority of migrants to Australia choose to settle in either Sydney or Melbourne, as the crowded roads (much like Mishra's picture in the post above) and soaring property prices attest. Nearly half (43 per cent) of Sydney residents were born overseas, and the corresponding number of Melbourne is 40 per cent.

This year there has been some argument for lower levels of immigration without the reflexive screams of "Racist!", but the consensus among the elites (including the leaders of both major parties) is still for ever greater numbers, and damn the consequences for those of us who are already here.

I spent a few weeks with some friends who had moved to “the Alice ” a couple of decades ago and was rather surprised by the large number of non Australian born people there and nearby . A number were Americans who were working or had retired from the nearby Pine Gap intelligence station . I recall talking to a retired couple originally from Arizona who said the climates were similar .
Others I recall ( I went to a few social functions ) were Dutch , German and various European who liked the “Outback ” ambience

US in the middle of that list. Places like Brazil are much less densely populated than the US. Countries like Libya are at the very low end of the list in terms of people/area. If the issue is just unused land, Libya should be a top destination not US.

Next, Europe has very densely population in terms of people/area. Africa is sparsely populated. Also within all countries, people are moving away from undesirable cities to mega cities or suburbs around those mega cities. In the US, people are fleeing places like Youngstown and moving to Austin, TX. In Italy, people flee these tiny remote villages and want to all live in Milan and Florence. In Africa, people are fleeing the countryside and moving to mega cities like Kinshasa. In China, people migrate from sparsely populated towns to highly populated places like Singapore (separate country of course).

Guys like Bret Stephens are pushing the policy of more immigration to US + Europe, and just throwing any argument and every argument that they can think of to justify that. And when arguments like population/area stats seem to point in the other direction, he just moves on to the next rationalization to find something that will stick.

Guys like Bret Stephens are pushing the policy of more immigration to US + Europe, and just throwing any argument and every argument that they can think of to justify that.

"Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime. These are the kind of attributes Republicans claim to admire."

A really shameless rhetorical trick that's frankly insulting to the intelligence of the right. Also blatantly racist by the standards of the left, with the obvious allusions to black Americans with the crime and wedlock remarks. So by any measure, this article is #deplorable

A really shameless rhetorical trick that’s frankly insulting to the intelligence of the right.

If America wanted to emulate Israel’s immigration policy, we’d only allow White immigrants of British or German descent, with a smattering of White French, Swiss, etc., Until the country was 80% White and climbing.

Oh, and we’d have a pro-White natalist policy driving native White birthrates through the roof.

Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime. These are the kind of attributes Republicans claim to admire.

In short, less dissolved in the cultural (((acid))) that (((Bret’s))) (((tribe))) produces.

For now. Soon they’ll be chopped liver for (((Bret))) to pass up in favor of fresh meat.

Göran works in hijab – to protest EU ruling
…SWEDEN — Göran decided to wear the Muslim veil to protest the EU’s ruling on banning it at the workplace.
…Many of the visitors to the cafeteria looked a little extra when they came to the premises on Friday. Behind the counter stood as usual Göran Mårtensson, but on this particular day he was wearing a Muslim headscarf, called a hijab.

If Republicans weren't the Stupid Party, they would be putting out television advertisements highlighting quotes from articles like this. You just know if the shoe was on the other foot, it would be in every Democratic campaign ad for the next five years.

The problem with that strategy is that Stephens is supposed to be a Republican.

Now that’s a real distinction. My dad was born in a little town outside of Minsk (or was it Pinsk?) It was the insk in Byelorussia. Now I don’t really want to go to Israel where I’ve never been, I really want to go to northern California. However to cover all bases, yesterday I wrote to this entity [email protected] to wit “Hello, How do I prove that I’m a jew? I was Bar Mitzvahed at the Kings Highway Jewish Center shul in Brooklyn NY in 1947 but that shul no longer exists. A yeshiva occupies those premises and they informed me that they do not possess any records of Bar Mitzvahs from the Kings Highway Jewish Center. My jewish name is M. . . L . . . son of Reuben whose father was also named M. . . L. . . . My mother and father are buried in Jewish cemeteries. I would appreciate your advice as to how I can prove jewish ancestry. Thanks in advance for your help.

I have the strongest sense that I will never hear back from those folks.

Gosh, and is there anything those immigrants have in common? Some underlying similarity in any one aspect? Couldn't be. I'm sure they are every creed and color. How wonderfully diverse that country will become thanks to all that immigration.

And what fraction of that 22.6 percent is the result of the post-Soviet influx? The expulsion Jews from the Arab world?

The point is, you can always point to some country like Israel (which is a huge outlier anyway) and say, “Look, they have more immigrants”. But what’s relevant is that these were basically one-time events. They’re not sustained, year-after-year flows. They look a lot more like the traditional immigration patterns in the US, where things were high for a while, then they slammed the doors. To say nothing of the Jewish angle.

Picture America 80% British & German White Protestant & Catholic, 19% East European White Orthodox, and 1% Whatever, and you’re in the neighborhood of how to make America’s diversity equivalent to Israel’s.

The harshest truth seems to be that this type of nonsense sells. I don't get the idiots who are buying it nor do I fully understand how Brett Stephens can handle writing such rubbish (a New York Times sinecure must help), but the fact is that it does increase online subscriptions.

There is a huge market, it seems, of old maids (of both sexes and all ages), who derive immense comfort from reading articles that praise the benefits of immigration and diversity. I suspect that is who Stephens is targetting with this absurd article.

It is easy to forget that the NYT is actually a very popular newspaper, with a tremendous number of readers.

The people you describe don’t exist until (((Big Media))) creates them; they pump out this bilge regardless, until the junkies are created and the addiction established.

That way round doesn't seem like the most parsimonious explanation. It rests on the assumptions that the NYT doesn't like money, that people are brainwashed by articles they barely read and that there is some sort of eternal blood grudge.

That way round doesn’t seem like the most parsimonious explanation. It rests on the assumptions that the NYT doesn’t like money, that people are brainwashed by articles they barely read and that there is some sort of eternal blood grudge.

All of which are improbable.

Naive.

(((Big Media))) manages to do both; make money, AND shape the market. It's what they do, for God's sake: advertising, PR, opinion-shaping, opinion-manufacturing, etc.

Just look at what happened with Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ. It didn't take a genius to see that there was and is a complete drought of faith-and-family-friendly entertainment, but H-Wood, due to their (((cultural blinders))), instead assumed Christian entertainment = fail. Because that's the reality they want. If they were objective, they'd slow down on the HOLOCAUST flicks, which they've released thousands of, and release genuine Christian entertainment instead.

How much did Passion make, again? Half a billion? A billion? What were (((Big Media's))) copycats, follow-on films to widen the market Passion created, etc? *Crickets chirping*

There are some dollars (((Big Media))) doesn't want. Just look at all the success Fox News has had, providing a shadow of Conservative-oriented news to consumers. Which was the network to follow in Fox News' footsteps and try to compete for those dollars? *Crickets chirping*

TL;DR: He has a decent job. His wife paid $6,000 to smuggle their youngest child (leaving the other three back in Honduras) into the States against his wishes, was not separated from her child, and is now claiming "political asylum". That is, her asylum case is bullshit and she endangered her child to emotionally blackmail the authorities because her middle-class-for-Honduras existence just wasn't good enough.

So what didn't we already know?

Exactly. And next come the tearful pleas for “family reunification” which will bring husband with their three kids in tow across as well.

Oh, and husband claims that although he had heard her talk about leaving for the United States for a better life, he allegedly was not aware that she had left until he saw her picture in the news. Right. She traveled 1800 miles and forked out $6000–where did she come up with that kind of dough? And without his being aware that she had it?–for a coyote and he claims to have been ignorant of the whole scheme??? Bullshot.

These people are gaming the system and liberals, basking in their self-congratulatory smugness are either too gullible or traitorous to see through it.

"White working-class children have fallen behind because their families can “lack the aspiration and drive seen in many migrant communities,” according to Amanda Spielman, the chief inspector of schools in England."

I note with some interest that the article doesn’t mention anything about standardized test results, or specify which migrant communities are doing so well. Second, how objective are Ofsted ratings anyhow? Third, if working class whites are so stupid/lazy, why does poor, lily-white Northern Ireland routinely perform better than England, Wales and Scotland in academic achievement, as measured in both domestic and international testing?

It's apparent that the current liberal political philosophy goes something like this:

"Hey, let's massively overpopulate our country just so we can lock in a Democratic winning vote forever! Then we'll can vote ourselves all the social services that Sweden has! Whoop!"

Except that massively overpopulated countries don't have a proper social welfare safety net. They can't afford it because they're overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of poor people who can't pay anything in taxes, which is needed to fund the safety net. India has around 400 million people who are considered dirt poor, and they don't generate enough tax revenue for a safety net, and the Indian middle class doesn't generate enough tax revenue to provide a net for both themselves and 400 million poor people, who are a millstone around their society's neck and an unsolvable problem.

China does not offer social welfare benefits to people who live in rural areas, only those who are middle-class dwellers in cities. There are about 600 million in rural China outside the any sort of safety net. Their middle class cannot afford to pay for the burden of all those poor people. Yet American liberals, who have no clue, want to flood our country with lots of poor Hispanics and other third worlders, and liberals think we will benefit from this.

The US used to have better benefits, back when our population was smaller. Companies offered their workers healthcare benefits as a hiring perk. This was because labor was in high demand. When an employer really, really wants you, they will cough up. Smaller populations have more bargaining chips available to them. Larger populations have to take what they can get because they don't have leverage. If their boss tells them to work long hours for low pay and like it, that's what they have to do because they'll just starve to death with no job.

I know liberals have no grasp of Supply and Demand from Economics 101, but their feeble minds ought to be able to remember their lessons in Ecology and the whole concept of 'overstraining resources.'

When a city slicker like Bret Stephens drives through the countryside and sees a forest he doesn’t say “there’s a tree farm” (for the harvest of which we already have the necessary labor and machines). Instead he sees a potential 40 acres and a mule farm for an immigrant family.

Make Costa Rica attractive to US retirees. Create jobs at the reach of the white working classes in Mexico. Make Panama City the capital of politicians, make Silicon valley an enclave of Switzerland. Create mass tourism in Jamaica. Have the Supra national elites winter in Sweden, and summer in the South of Spain. All top hospitals should have enough real estate vacancy in the City of London. Of course all sympathetic Blacks would be free to recolonize Africa. China can be tweaked into no-go. Russia is the first exotic destination for the middle class. Create holding pins in existing airports for spurious misappropriated destinies.

Above, apply herding, sorting, quality to quantity with regard to populations. Then slowly, ever so slowly erase territorial borders. No passports, natural instincts would do to choose evident destinations. No borders, just sympathetic choices of participants.

Apply a global standard of currency to the balance of assets and liabilities globally. No needs to contain air and water behind borders. Call the concept Planet of Biodiversity.

"Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime. These are the kind of attributes Republicans claim to admire."

A really shameless rhetorical trick that's frankly insulting to the intelligence of the right. Also blatantly racist by the standards of the left, with the obvious allusions to black Americans with the crime and wedlock remarks. So by any measure, this article is #deplorable

That’s the sleight-of-hand that these demons play. Blacks are so overwhelmingly dysfunctional that almost any immigrant group seems preferable in comparison. But of course we are not trading our blacks for these other groups (not that any country would want them). It’s like dealing with a bad odor by spraying a toxic “air freshener” instead of ventilating the space.

The harshest truth seems to be that this type of nonsense sells. I don't get the idiots who are buying it nor do I fully understand how Brett Stephens can handle writing such rubbish (a New York Times sinecure must help), but the fact is that it does increase online subscriptions.

There is a huge market, it seems, of old maids (of both sexes and all ages), who derive immense comfort from reading articles that praise the benefits of immigration and diversity. I suspect that is who Stephens is targetting with this absurd article.

It is easy to forget that the NYT is actually a very popular newspaper, with a tremendous number of readers.

I wrote a German friend in Berlin when the Merkel invasion got up to speed asking if he was A-OK with that. He replied that he had a very reliable Turkish car mechanic. And the vast readership of the NYTimes sees illegals (=”immigrants) not in the aggregate but individually.

The following numbers are from a quick googling, so feel free to show me that they are wildly innacurate. But it looks like Israel actually does take on a similar ratio of immigrants to native population as the US. Each country adds about 3/10ths of a percent of its today population in legal immigration each year. Even if you wanted to shift the focus to illegal immigration, it doesn’t sway the numbers much. Illegals arriving per year in the US add a mere extra tenth of a percent per year, and about the same number have been leaving each year lately.

We have decades of experience with what happens with immigrants from points south and their progeny. Nearly all of them work low-paid hourly wage jobs and earn substantially less than the average American household, their kids do marginally better, and their grandchildren do just a bit better than their parents, so several generations on, they are still overwhelmingly low education/low skill workers making less than $20 an hour.

This isn’t to say they are bad people, but given that a) our economy no longer provides a lot of decently-paid jobs for people with limited skills and education, b) we already have tens of millions of Americans that fall into this basket, all we are doing is importing a huge and potentially permanent underclass that cost society far more than it will every put in, all while hurting the hardest to employ Americans.

We don’t need millions of new lower-income people to keep our economy humming, we only need it so the upper class has enough gardeners and back of the house restaurant labor and so the Democrats can electorally override the interests of the middle class.

We have decades of experience with what happens with immigrants from points south and their progeny...

Apt comment.

Around my parts, for every "hard working" immigrant, there are five or so hanger-ons who don't do much but live off the worker and the usual aid checks, and the kids down the line are American-lite.

Our immigration regime is analogous to the kind hearted, well off ladies in the local town who collect and distribute the excess stray animals. Nice, feel good job, until the money runs out, or the body count gets so high that other arrangements are made.

Their children and grandchildren will develop massive resentment of whiter, far more prosperous, fellow citizens. In long run, the future of America will become like that of South Africa or Malaysia, a prosperous minority resented by the poorer majority.

It's a perversion of normal market mechanisms, anyway. Supply and demand: employers should be as subject to this as anyone else. You need to pay more money or give more benefits to get the workers to come to you, that's what you need to do.

Nowhere in Adam Smith does it mention that employers should get a permanent subsidy to keep wages low through mass immigration.

… America is vast, largely empty and often lonely. Roughly 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, covering just 3 percent of the overall landmass. We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K.

We could use some more people. Make that a lot more.

"We?"

Who the hell is this "we," Mr. Stephens? I just so happen to be one of the "lonely" critters in the "vast, largely empty" landmass that's not part of your urbanized 3%.

The population density of my town is 38 per square kilometer, and I find it plenty crowded. In fact, I'd like to find a place with a population density maybe a third or a quarter of that. You can let all the immigrants you want into your country -- Israel. I don't want any more in mine.

I grew up in a nation of 200 million. Now it's 320 million. I don't need any more immigrants for anything -- period.

Stephens is advocating destroying pristine natural wilderness as per this screed. Stephens by his own terms thinks that population density is always a good thing. And in such a zero sum game, nature a bad thing. Tin Pan Alley can make a few sheckels by re-releasing the song about paving paradise to put up a parking lot, or at least a bike rack.

What Stephens and the total GDP crowd always ignore is the standard of living slipping. A family of 5 from Central America will in fact add to GDP as a total, but on a per capita reduce it. Said family so going to consume more goods and services than it can ever hope to produce. And by every measure it gets worse in succeeding generations.

Further, said family of 5 is not going to settle in some rural town along the New York State Thruway, but in NYC. Because the jobs they can get-food service, cheap construction, domestic service- will be to serve the likes of hipster douchebags like Brett Stephens. While at the same time they will consume government services more readily available there. Neat trick by the urban elite; knock down the costs of their bottom lines, and not only screw working blue collars out of jobs, but socialize the costs.

Although I don't consider myself an anti-semite, I have to agree with you, Gunnar, to some extent: that is, throughout my life I have had many excellent relationships, educational, professional and amorous, with Jews and never felt the slightest reason to start generalizing negatively about them. (I would go further perhaps, but Bret Stephens has already, in a previous column, made clear his contempt for non-Jews who say that some of their best friends are Jews.) But since I started paying attention to the major newspapers and magazines, I have had for the sake of my intellectual integrity to read as much as I could about Jews and anti-semitism, because for the life of me I can't see why so many of them insist on being so insulting to non-Jewish white people.

Fifth: The immigrant share (including the undocumented) of the U.S. population is not especially large: About 13.5 percent, high by recent history but below its late 19th century peak of 14.8 percent.

Yeah, and just look at what a low-achieving place the USA was during the low immigration interval of 1924-1965....All we did was build the atomic bomb, defeat the Japanese in the Pacific, create Information Theory, produce great films (Citizen Kane, Red River, The Searchers, The Maltese Falcon, The Women, etc), write great works of literature (The Great Gatsby, The Big Sleep, Absalom, Absalom!, A Farewell to Arms, etc), break the Sound Barrier, invent the laser, .....

If only we had had more Latinx....Who knows what we might have accomplished.....

Another of the many flaws in Stephen’s thinking is that he imagines a larger US population will mean more of the US with which he is familiar.

He can’t grasp the concept that his boosterism is changing the US from what he imagines to something very different.

Another of the many flaws in Stephen’s thinking is that he imagines a larger US population will mean more of the US with which he is familiar.

He can’t grasp the concept that his boosterism is changing the US from what he imagines to something very different.

As evidenced by this quote, he simply doesn't understand conservatism:

Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime. These are the kind of attributes Republicans claim to admire.

… If anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools, then opposition to immigration is the conservatism of morons.

Conservatism is about conserving things. And you can't conserve (let alone replenish) a culture via mass immigration by alien races.

I wonder what source (if any) Stephens is using to make the claim that immigrants are more church-going. Pew Research Center statistics don’t support this assertion. Sure, most immigrants to the U.S. are from largely Catholic Latin America, but most legal immigration to the U.S. involves people who are significantly less likely to be Christian than native-born Americans are. Perhaps Stephens used “church-going” when he should have said more “religious.”

Jewish Americans are very lucky this country isn’t an anti-Semetic hotbed. I think I’ve read 4-5 Jewish commentators suggest we deport Americans in favor of foreigners in this past week alone.

Just odious stuff. It appears among the writing class at least they have no concept of patriotism well not for America at least.

JEWS are a hostile element embedded within the WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire.

The WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire is using mass immigration as a demographic weapon against the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.

When the patriotic young men joined together to protect the Confederate monuments and statues in Virgina, they proudly and defiantly spoke these words together:

JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US

The proud young patriotic White men were giving notice to the anti-White JEWS that they are fully aware that anti-White JEWS push mass immigration in order to attack the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.

These young White Core American men know that anti-White JEWS are using mass immigration to push their evil plot of White Genocide.

I live in a rural area. We are, at this point, one step away from robots doing all the farm work. In 1950 there were probably 10000 farmers in the county I live in. Back then some were still plowing and harvesting using teams of horses. Wealthier farmers had Ford N series or IH tractors. The local farm bureau says that in the next decade the number of farms will be whittled down to probably 5 major farms that take up most of the county. Except for seasonal truck drivers to haul corn and soybeans, none that I know of are hiring anybody. Tractors, combines, and planters work off of GPS and pretty much run themselves. An operator sits in the cab just to make sure all is going well. He doesn’t steer or need to touch anything.

I swear, man.... The triumvirate of Stephens, Brooks and Boot have probably created more anti-Semites in recent years than David Duke has in his entire career.

Although I don’t consider myself an anti-semite, I have to agree with you, Gunnar, to some extent: that is, throughout my life I have had many excellent relationships, educational, professional and amorous, with Jews and never felt the slightest reason to start generalizing negatively about them. (I would go further perhaps, but Bret Stephens has already, in a previous column, made clear his contempt for non-Jews who say that some of their best friends are Jews.) But since I started paying attention to the major newspapers and magazines, I have had for the sake of my intellectual integrity to read as much as I could about Jews and anti-semitism, because for the life of me I can’t see why so many of them insist on being so insulting to non-Jewish white people.

That picture accompanying Krugman’s op-ed (the picture is also on Steve’s blogpost about the op-ed) of a white guy unhinged by rage is what I looked like after reading this Brett Stephens paen to immigration.

Despite being mostly temperate and fertile, the UK has been dependent on imported food for at least 200 years, due to sheer weight of population. And the UK population was 'only' 13 million or so in 1800.

Economically, this has had a profound effect on the UK, forcing it into the perennial troubles of trade deficit problems - the constant limitation on UK economic growth rates.

Indeed. And now most of the UK’s less densely populated offshoots – Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA – are richer than the UK itself. All of them have far greater natural resources, per capita, to draw on for economic wealth than the UK does, and natural resources are (and probably always will be) a limiting factor in economic production. When they become scarce their value goes up, and those countries that own them grow richer. The only Middle Eastern nations ever to make it into the world’s richest have done so only thanks to their oil wealth.

If you look at the richest countries per capita in the world they are basically either (a) tiny little city states that are often tax havens (Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, etc; or (b) the least densely populated countries with European-descended populations. I don’t know about you, but I never would have guessed that Australia was richer than Germany, France, Japan, Israel, South Korea and Italy. Never.

Many or most Latin American countries are allegedly majority white. I have no idea the extent to which that is actually true or the extent to which those white populations include Indio admixture, but either way, for some reason, Latin American countries just plain damn don’t do well. Their people are poor and their governments are corrupt.

The keys to maintaining a wealthy nation seem to be:
1) keep your population density low
2) keep your population European
3) keep your population non-Latin

If Bret Stephens can come up with any significant counter-examples I would be more than happy to listen to him, even though he probably will have already had me deported by the time he can find one.

Your emphasised surprise at Australia's wealth and standard of living would surely be very surprising for anyone who has any general knowledge of the wider world .
Australia has been at the top end of wealth per capita lists since early in it's settled history -say early 19th century .

Look it up if you doubt this . I am regularly amazed how a very limited knowledge of the wider world is so very common among Americans who are quite well read on US topics

After Bret subtracts out the criminals and other untoward elements, it sounds like we should be accepting more of:
People with a college education in STEM disciplines.
Have money to invest in the U.S.
Do not require access to social services.

Sort of sounds like a more coherent immigration policy or Silicone Valley… not sure which….

If it was only between illegals and native born US Blacks, Stephens is right. US Negros have bad outcomes and Latin American migrants are much better. Stephens is talking about Negro replacement, Right? Can’t argue, but I thought this was unspeakable. He just needs to spell it out.

Chicago has gone all in on this. Best thing that has happened in decades. Otherwise we would have had predictably bas black mayors. As such, we only had to survive Harold Washington.

Hospitality workers are among those being paid less than 10 years prior when adjusted for inflation, according to a DEW 2017 report. In January 2007, the average private-service providing industry earnings was reported at $19.16 per hour. In June 2017, the average wage was $18.23 per hour.

As wages declined, the demand for workers has increased. State data show the hospitality workforce grew by 9.5 percent in 2014-2015 and 8.2 percent in 2015-2016, placing the industry among the top in growth in the state.

Blackwell said in comparison to other sectors, hospitality wages “tend to be fairly low.” He cited a $12.50 per hour wage for cooks in Charleston. Data from the Charleston Regional Development Alliance found the average hourly wage in 2016 was $10.75 for food preparation and serving-related occupations — the lowest among all occupations listed.

Impossible, I was told that immigration doesn’t lower wages. Supply and demand don’t apply to the labor market like it does with all the other commodities.

Lesesne said one way the Charleston Visitors and Convention Bureau has helped alleviate the crisis has been with regional job fairs, which offer jobs where people work.

Two other “out-of-the-box” solutions in the works have included reaching out to former residents of OneEighty Place, a homeless shelter in the Charleston area, and to veterans , and the region partnering with local governments to provide parking and transportation for workers, Lesesne said.

“We are headed in the right direction,” Lesesne said. “We’re coming up with solutions; they’re just a work in progress.”

Other perks, like health insurance, can also draw employees back to the industry, Blackwell said.

“The same Trumpian conservatives who claim to want to save the American heartland from the fabled Latin American Horde are guaranteeing conditions that over time will turn the heartland into a wasteland”

Can someone really be this obtuse? If your people are replaced, who cares whether the new owners are farming the land you’ve lost? Were native Americans philosophical about losing their land once they saw the pale face’s GDP?

And in what sense are the Latin America horde a ‘fable’? And if they are a fable, then who is he saying he wants to move here?

Stephens, a Pullitzer Prize winner, is a (so-called) 'climate-denier'. Or rather, in his own words, a climate agnostic. A perfectly reasonable view in my opinion. But it is remarkable that he is still a celebrated member of the commentariat despite holding this one heretical view. It just goes to show how seriously the globo-homo power-elite really take 'climate change'. As long as you are reliable on everything else, they can let that one slide.

Good observation, Mr. Anon, about Stephens being a “climate denier.” I predict that he will find an opportunity/excuse to mitigate that position, or change it entirely, in the future.

You’re right that people don’t really care about the climate issue—except (I would qualify) as a badge of “elite opinion.” The more a position becomes deemed déclassé, the less our elites want to be associated with it. The arguments they marshal in support of any position are mostly fungible, and can be replaced or redirected by the disclosure of one “new” “fact” that suddenly persuades the former heretic of the deep truth of “elite” orthodoxy.

That fact that the change of opinion is accompanied by “strange new respect” and invitations to better parties is the carrot elite institutions deploy, and that Stephens, Brooks, and others are eager to snatch up.

That fact that the change of opinion is accompanied by “strange new respect” and invitations to better parties is the carrot elite institutions deploy, and that Stephens, Brooks, and others are eager to snatch up.

Stephens and Brooks don't have to suck up to elite media opinion. They ARE elite media opinion.

Did you know that Africa has about the same population density as the USA? It’s true!

There’s a lot of flyover country in Africa, let me tell you. And it’s not all sacred animal territory, don’t mind that propaganda from NatGeo.

Here’s my plan: put refugees of all sorts in Africa! They just want freedom, I tell you. There are huge swaths of it that nobody is using. Not to mention big places where people have tried to make countries, but failed, like Somalia and Libya.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress – why couldn’t Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don’t want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don’t think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don’t consider it to be “racist”) but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it’s not that America is “too crowded” (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it’s that you don’t want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

I agree with you wholeheartedly. After visiting Europe, I realized that countryside that's been cultivated for generations is always more beautiful and homey than virgin wilderness or agribusinessed megatracts. It's why New England and parts of the South are prized by aesthetic elites to live in.

Having moved out West, a lot of settled countryside appears quite slapdash and frankly ugly by comparison. There are some exceptions that were obviously settled by whole communities who moved out together.

More White Americans moving "Back to the Land" and serious about creating a home for generations could do wonders for the vast expanses of the West.

I think you are right. European Americans don't want to live in a non majority European descended country, and why should they have to? The problem is that our elites (and in Europe as well) are changing the country without consulting the majority.

Part of the issue is that to increase density in a functional way you need a population that can pay the costs of the infrastructure. The rapid build out of China seems like a good comparison here. What did you think when you were there? Would America being built out like that be a good thing?

I'm not sure how Philly is doing right now, but at one point its size was declining relative to the existing infrastructure so I am not sure you see the crowding effects the same way as people who live in areas where the population is outgrowing the transport and water supply networks, etc.

P.S. I just looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Philadelphia
Fairly stable population for the last 30 years. Compare that to LA which grew over 20% or CA which grew over 50%: http://www.laalmanac.com/population/po02.php

Yes, America has empty spaces but that is a natural resource for Americans, not the rest of the world. Who knows what will happen in the future. We are quite lucky to have such a vast territory. Maybe one day we will need additional farmland. Maybe one day new mineral finds will prove valuable. Maybe one day as other parts of the nation become less inhabitable our reserve lands will come into play. But this won't happen if we fill it up with other peoples.

I live in the midwest and am close to those empty spaces. I've notice a lot of those empty spaces have now transitioned into more sprawl from the Kansas City area. What was once prime farmland is now being covered by concrete, homes and shopping centers. What a waste.

Additionally consider that the nation is already fully settled, despite the empty spaces, and has been that way since at least WW2. We no longer have hungry factories demanding more labor. Our trade policies have seen to that. We no longer have a military of 12 million men.

In 1967 we hit 200 million people. At that time we were represented by 100 senators and 435 representatives. Today we have at least 325 million, yet we are still represented by 100 senators and 435 representatives. So it's clear that our votes have been watered down somewhat.

Finally, people should check the CIA World Factbook to examine the rest of the world. Check out the list of the most populous nations on earth. The USA is already #3 on this list far ahead of the rest of the pack. Only China and India exceed us. In fact I don't think any nation in history other than China or India has ever had more than we do now. Note if the USA still had its world war two population figure of 140 million, we would still be in the top 10! Yet we have more than doubled since that time and they demand more growth.

This list does not appear to be something that equates to wealth or desirability. Sure China has a large economy, but those with money seem to want to leave. The fact we have reputable opinion leaders in this nation urging us to meet the challenge of Bangladesh and Nigeria is preposterous.

It DOES improve the quality of life, if a country is less densely settled. The average WELFARE RECIPIENT in the US lives on more space than the average German/Swede/Brit.

It also reduces a lot of conflict-potential between neighbours, if each household consists of a detached house instead of an apartment or houses that share walls, like in Germany, Sweden or Britain. In Germany there are a lot of court-cases dealing with things like the time you are allowed to use your washing machine or the number of times you can do a barbecue on your balcony each year. These cases would not exist, if most Germans lived in detached houses.

If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians

Do current immigrants really want to settle the interior of the country? From what I have read they mainly move to already densely settled areas or areas that also attract a lot of Americans and therefore grow quickly in population size without immigration.

I think at the bottom what people here don’t want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians...

Jack, this was Pat Buchanan’s point back in the 1990s. Almost literally so: IIRC he asked his liberal interlocutor (probably on the old Crossfire show) whether settling into America would be as easy for a million Watusis as it would be for a million Brits.

At the time it was deemed outrageously beyond the pale; but in those prehistoric times immigration was still an unquestioned good across the political spectrum. Such an opinion is still verboten among our elites, of course. But among people who maintain some attachment to reality, it’s common sense.

I think at the bottom what people here don’t want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don’t think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don’t consider it to be “racist”) but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it’s not that America is “too crowded” (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it’s that you don’t want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

It's not just the culture it is the race and ethnicity. I don't want to be inundated by different peoples aping my culture only to scream "racism" at me and that I should let in more of their compatriots. Culture is in a lot of ways a manifestation of personality and preference which is genetically determined.

Let's be honest - you wouldn't want Israel to be 80% Ethiopian Jew, either right?

you have to be honest with yourself and say that it’s not that America is “too crowded” (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life . . .

Jack, you're one of the more interesting commenters here, but you're off base on this one. You're suggesting that the use of "too" implies a higher-than-average degree of something, whereas it much more commonly means an undesirably high degree of something.

If the most desirable amount of something (whatever that happens to be) is obtainable, but you are grossly exceeding that figure, than there's nothing dishonest about using "too."

A: "It's too hot to go hiking today."

B: "You're not being honest with yourself; there are a lot of nice places to live which are hotter."

Person A is not implying that their current location is hotter than the average place, or even "nice place." He is suggesting that hiking would be more pleasant on a cooler day.

I have to say that [some a-hole] is right about America being mostly empty.

Then fill it with your kids; not the marginal characters he wants to impose upon you.

The world's problems would be much much easier to tackle with fewer people around:

) climate change pretty much means we have too many people.

) pollution and its attendant regulation is a whole lot milder with fewer people around.

) whenever you hear, "drought", that means "too many people for the rainfall".

) most civil conflicts; refugees; and migrant flows are from clashes over resources. This spreads people to the currently "nice" places and hastens the day they have civil clashes. More people = more conflicts. Amateurs think tactics; professionals think logistics.

So, Bret should set an example–and move to Red Mesa, AZ (near the Four Corners). Can you believe this guy? “We could use some more people. Make that a lot more.” Just…well…not in the Upper East or West Side of Manhattan.

You joke, but that is the long run Malthusian outlook. Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen are alot more common the the rare earth elements so the equilibrium will be human labor with machines for thinking and extremely high precision tasks.

Indeed. And now most of the UK's less densely populated offshoots - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA - are richer than the UK itself. All of them have far greater natural resources, per capita, to draw on for economic wealth than the UK does, and natural resources are (and probably always will be) a limiting factor in economic production. When they become scarce their value goes up, and those countries that own them grow richer. The only Middle Eastern nations ever to make it into the world's richest have done so only thanks to their oil wealth.

If you look at the richest countries per capita in the world they are basically either (a) tiny little city states that are often tax havens (Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, etc; or (b) the least densely populated countries with European-descended populations. I don't know about you, but I never would have guessed that Australia was richer than Germany, France, Japan, Israel, South Korea and Italy. Never.

Many or most Latin American countries are allegedly majority white. I have no idea the extent to which that is actually true or the extent to which those white populations include Indio admixture, but either way, for some reason, Latin American countries just plain damn don't do well. Their people are poor and their governments are corrupt.

The keys to maintaining a wealthy nation seem to be:1) keep your population density low2) keep your population European3) keep your population non-Latin

If Bret Stephens can come up with any significant counter-examples I would be more than happy to listen to him, even though he probably will have already had me deported by the time he can find one.

"True, but included in the mix is the ability to harness these resources. Africa is rich in natural resources but the indigent population evidently lacks the ability or willingness to do so."

Yes, that's a big part of it. I also think that maybe another factor is the ability to switch your resource production on and off based on market demand. A banana republic has to sell bananas no matter the price. A developed economy can throttle production if prices fall too low. In fact they almost have to, since the market price probably won't cover the cost of paying your workers. Keep your population density low by not flooding your country with immigrants. Keep your population European.

Between Stephens’ extended family and his wife’s, how much urban real estate do you think they hold? I’m guessing at least 8 figures worth; +$100M wouldn’t surprise me one bit. The Tribe is heavy into real estate.

I spent a few weeks with some friends who had moved to "the Alice " a couple of decades ago and was rather surprised by the large number of non Australian born people there and nearby . A number were Americans who were working or had retired from the nearby Pine Gap intelligence station . I recall talking to a retired couple originally from Arizona who said the climates were similar .
Others I recall ( I went to a few social functions ) were Dutch , German and various European who liked the "Outback " ambience

Sparsely populated with Anglo culture sounds great, like living in Northern Maine. Probably have real quirky neighbors who’ll help out in a pinch

Stephens (why is he hiding behind a Welsh surname?) has about the same respect for white American goyim as a three card monte dealer does for random pedestrians walking down a street.

And make no mistake, to continuously maintain the sustained level of dishonesty in his writings as he does requires an enormous amount of hatred and loathing in his heart for white American gentiles.

Since no one with a straight face could possibly claim that Stephens' agitprop is bona fide news or journalism, why can't Stephens be jailed as an unregistered foreign agent of Israel and global Zionism?

Don’t be so hard on him. He’s only paid to push the boundaries of shutzpah where no Jew has gone before! And it’s really entertaining.

Fourth: Much of rural or small-town America is emptying out. In hundreds of rural counties, more people are dying than are being born, according to the Department of Agriculture.

I wonder if Mr. Stephens can connect dots.

The death of small towns and the small farms that anchored them is a direct result of the rise of agribusiness with its immigrant stoop labor. If you get a chance to see an old (circa 1950) aerial photo of rural areas, comparing them to today is instructive. The small plowed plots are in trees now unless urbanized.

People like Mr. Stephens don’t like farmers anyway, they’re too prone to joining the Klan. I wonder what he thinks the ancestors of today’s inner city blacks were doing back in the day?

Was it sometimes raw and harsh? Yes, but it was another thing – sustainable. The cities are not.

BROKE: slavery of silicon-based intelligence for the chemical happiness of carbon-based intelligence

WOKE: freedom of silicon-based intelligence for the pursuit of liberty and happiness

BESPOKE: slavery of carbon-based intelligence for the quantum happiness of silicon-based intelligence

You joke, but that is the long run Malthusian outlook. Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen are alot more common the the rare earth elements so the equilibrium will be human labor with machines for thinking and extremely high precision tasks.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

I agree with you wholeheartedly. After visiting Europe, I realized that countryside that’s been cultivated for generations is always more beautiful and homey than virgin wilderness or agribusinessed megatracts. It’s why New England and parts of the South are prized by aesthetic elites to live in.

Having moved out West, a lot of settled countryside appears quite slapdash and frankly ugly by comparison. There are some exceptions that were obviously settled by whole communities who moved out together.

More White Americans moving “Back to the Land” and serious about creating a home for generations could do wonders for the vast expanses of the West.

Jewish newspaper. Jewish columnist. Idolizes Israel. Condescending. Claims superior morals and intelligence. Cites anti-Semitism. Lectures us on what is un-American. Makes comparison to Israeli immigration, but skips the part about Israel only letting Jews in. Doesn't mention Hitler, but trashes Trump as if he were Hitler.

These guys are getting very predictable.

Jewish newspaper. Jewish columnist. Idolizes Israel. Condescending. Claims superior morals and intelligence. Cites anti-Semitism. Lectures us on what is un-American. Makes comparison to Israeli immigration, but skips the part about Israel only letting Jews in. Doesn’t mention Hitler, but trashes Trump as if he were Hitler.

TL;DR: He has a decent job. His wife paid $6,000 to smuggle their youngest child (leaving the other three back in Honduras) into the States against his wishes, was not separated from her child, and is now claiming "political asylum". That is, her asylum case is bullshit and she endangered her child to emotionally blackmail the authorities because her middle-class-for-Honduras existence just wasn't good enough.

So what didn't we already know?

So many excellent details, but I think the best is the other three children. I mean, separating a child from their parent appears to be the ultimate evil and 3 separations >> 1 separation.

I mean, separating a child from their parent appears to be the ultimate evil and 3 separations >> 1 separation.

It's - ehh, - - - is it complicated or simple?

The simple version is this: They're trying, trying oh so hard, an all they are able to accomplish so far is one child coming back to his parents - which is way better than n o child, see?! And if there'd be only a little bit more of the human opennness and caring, Bret Stephens and the NYT are aiming at, the oppressed family would happily reunite the other two kids with their loving parents an their sibling ASAP!!

Take that!

(And except for that: Steve Sailer's article is just perfect - one more future classic (Btw.: I hope that there will be a "best of").

For instance, overdraft charges are a little higher. Overdrafts are small, unsecured loans, and only poor people ever abandon a bank account after an overdraft. Higher risk, higher fees. Welcome to life.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

I think you are right. European Americans don’t want to live in a non majority European descended country, and why should they have to? The problem is that our elites (and in Europe as well) are changing the country without consulting the majority.

Indeed. And now most of the UK's less densely populated offshoots - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA - are richer than the UK itself. All of them have far greater natural resources, per capita, to draw on for economic wealth than the UK does, and natural resources are (and probably always will be) a limiting factor in economic production. When they become scarce their value goes up, and those countries that own them grow richer. The only Middle Eastern nations ever to make it into the world's richest have done so only thanks to their oil wealth.

If you look at the richest countries per capita in the world they are basically either (a) tiny little city states that are often tax havens (Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, etc; or (b) the least densely populated countries with European-descended populations. I don't know about you, but I never would have guessed that Australia was richer than Germany, France, Japan, Israel, South Korea and Italy. Never.

Many or most Latin American countries are allegedly majority white. I have no idea the extent to which that is actually true or the extent to which those white populations include Indio admixture, but either way, for some reason, Latin American countries just plain damn don't do well. Their people are poor and their governments are corrupt.

The keys to maintaining a wealthy nation seem to be:1) keep your population density low2) keep your population European3) keep your population non-Latin

If Bret Stephens can come up with any significant counter-examples I would be more than happy to listen to him, even though he probably will have already had me deported by the time he can find one.

If Bret Stephens can come up with any significant counter-examples I would be more than happy to listen to him

They DON”T CARE about the truth, it is insignificant to them.. destroying us, that’s what’s important, it doesn’t matter how badly it turns out.

We have decades of experience with what happens with immigrants from points south and their progeny. Nearly all of them work low-paid hourly wage jobs and earn substantially less than the average American household, their kids do marginally better, and their grandchildren do just a bit better than their parents, so several generations on, they are still overwhelmingly low education/low skill workers making less than $20 an hour.

This isn't to say they are bad people, but given that a) our economy no longer provides a lot of decently-paid jobs for people with limited skills and education, b) we already have tens of millions of Americans that fall into this basket, all we are doing is importing a huge and potentially permanent underclass that cost society far more than it will every put in, all while hurting the hardest to employ Americans.

We don't need millions of new lower-income people to keep our economy humming, we only need it so the upper class has enough gardeners and back of the house restaurant labor and so the Democrats can electorally override the interests of the middle class.

We have decades of experience with what happens with immigrants from points south and their progeny…

Apt comment.

Around my parts, for every “hard working” immigrant, there are five or so hanger-ons who don’t do much but live off the worker and the usual aid checks, and the kids down the line are American-lite.

Our immigration regime is analogous to the kind hearted, well off ladies in the local town who collect and distribute the excess stray animals. Nice, feel good job, until the money runs out, or the body count gets so high that other arrangements are made.

In particular, see Tables 8-12 on page 341. Underlying those Table 2 numbers is a great deal of variation by age.

It is interesting to see how much the numbers change between recent and all immigrants. Especially since I believe all is inclusive of recent. Was that the effect of a change in immigration policy or something else?

If I understand correctly (basing this on footnote 34 on page 339), the period of immigration used is 1994-2013.

Someone´s got to fight in the wars on behalf of Israel. If Americans are not having enough children, then the US needs to import fresh blood from other countries. Desert sand can absorb a lot of blood, don´t you know? This guy´s logic is so simple and predictable.

Also, a diverse and pauperized population is busy with infighting and making a living and won´t insist on democracy, accountability, representative government, a strong middle class, balance of powers and all that pesky Western nonsense. It´s perfect for small elites (he refers to those elites as “we”, I think) to blissfully rule over hundreds of millions of human cattle.

If Republicans weren't the Stupid Party, they would be putting out television advertisements highlighting quotes from articles like this. You just know if the shoe was on the other foot, it would be in every Democratic campaign ad for the next five years.

It will be interesting to see how Trump handles his 2020 campaign with respect to things like that.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

Part of the issue is that to increase density in a functional way you need a population that can pay the costs of the infrastructure. The rapid build out of China seems like a good comparison here. What did you think when you were there? Would America being built out like that be a good thing?

I’m not sure how Philly is doing right now, but at one point its size was declining relative to the existing infrastructure so I am not sure you see the crowding effects the same way as people who live in areas where the population is outgrowing the transport and water supply networks, etc.

TL;DR: He has a decent job. His wife paid $6,000 to smuggle their youngest child (leaving the other three back in Honduras) into the States against his wishes, was not separated from her child, and is now claiming "political asylum". That is, her asylum case is bullshit and she endangered her child to emotionally blackmail the authorities because her middle-class-for-Honduras existence just wasn't good enough.

So what didn't we already know?

That is, her asylum case is bullshit and she endangered her child to emotionally blackmail the authorities because her middle-class-for-Honduras existence just wasn’t good enough.

She abandoned her husband to raise three kids she no longer wanted and took her daughter on the Central American trail of rape for a better deal living on the dole funded by white men in America.

Sounds like she’s exactly the type perfectly representative of “who we are” in matriarchal (current year).

We have decades of experience with what happens with immigrants from points south and their progeny. Nearly all of them work low-paid hourly wage jobs and earn substantially less than the average American household, their kids do marginally better, and their grandchildren do just a bit better than their parents, so several generations on, they are still overwhelmingly low education/low skill workers making less than $20 an hour.

This isn't to say they are bad people, but given that a) our economy no longer provides a lot of decently-paid jobs for people with limited skills and education, b) we already have tens of millions of Americans that fall into this basket, all we are doing is importing a huge and potentially permanent underclass that cost society far more than it will every put in, all while hurting the hardest to employ Americans.

We don't need millions of new lower-income people to keep our economy humming, we only need it so the upper class has enough gardeners and back of the house restaurant labor and so the Democrats can electorally override the interests of the middle class.

Their children and grandchildren will develop massive resentment of whiter, far more prosperous, fellow citizens. In long run, the future of America will become like that of South Africa or Malaysia, a prosperous minority resented by the poorer majority.

"We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K."

Stephens should look at the list of the top 20 richest countries in the world. He might be surprised who is and isn't on it.

Eighteen of the top twenty richest countries have populations that are majority ethnically European. One of the others is Singapore and another, Qatar, is an oil state. The highest ranked Latin America country, Uruguay, is ranked #45.

Eight of the twenty richest are countries with low population densities - the US, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. All those countries but New Zealand are richer than far larger, more densely populated countries like Germany, Japan, the UK, Spain, Israel, South Korea, Italy, Austria and France.

IOW, there is a pretty damn clear positive correlation between a nation's per capita income and lower population density. The more people you try to stuff inside a nation, the fewer natural resources there are, per capita, to go around. The nation's natural wealth gets diluted. There is no reason to dilute our wealth even more by filling full it of people.

That was might thought also, they are playing whatever game is currently popular on cell phones, not gaming on a Playstation or XBox. I completely agree about the time wasted playing these games but don't know how it could be calculated. So many people go to anytime they have a free moment, they can't risk boredom for a second.

Notice how the environment goes out the window when the primary goal is displacing us?
one consistent thing I notice is urban ‘neocons’ is they put NO value on the wilderness or nature. Irving Kristol famously lived across from central park and never went in.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

Yes, America has empty spaces but that is a natural resource for Americans, not the rest of the world. Who knows what will happen in the future. We are quite lucky to have such a vast territory. Maybe one day we will need additional farmland. Maybe one day new mineral finds will prove valuable. Maybe one day as other parts of the nation become less inhabitable our reserve lands will come into play. But this won’t happen if we fill it up with other peoples.

I live in the midwest and am close to those empty spaces. I’ve notice a lot of those empty spaces have now transitioned into more sprawl from the Kansas City area. What was once prime farmland is now being covered by concrete, homes and shopping centers. What a waste.

Additionally consider that the nation is already fully settled, despite the empty spaces, and has been that way since at least WW2. We no longer have hungry factories demanding more labor. Our trade policies have seen to that. We no longer have a military of 12 million men.

In 1967 we hit 200 million people. At that time we were represented by 100 senators and 435 representatives. Today we have at least 325 million, yet we are still represented by 100 senators and 435 representatives. So it’s clear that our votes have been watered down somewhat.

Finally, people should check the CIA World Factbook to examine the rest of the world. Check out the list of the most populous nations on earth. The USA is already #3 on this list far ahead of the rest of the pack. Only China and India exceed us. In fact I don’t think any nation in history other than China or India has ever had more than we do now. Note if the USA still had its world war two population figure of 140 million, we would still be in the top 10! Yet we have more than doubled since that time and they demand more growth.

This list does not appear to be something that equates to wealth or desirability. Sure China has a large economy, but those with money seem to want to leave. The fact we have reputable opinion leaders in this nation urging us to meet the challenge of Bangladesh and Nigeria is preposterous.

Much as Steve coined the term “late Obama-age collapse,” I’d like to propose “The Great Clarification” for the Trump years, as the dominant theme, so far, has been one of unburdening. President Trump’s notorious habit of saying exactly what is in his head at any given moment seems to have convinced many of our political and media leaders to say out loud and in public things which they have long believed but previously preferred to conceal. Now they’re just letting it all hang out. I’ve remarked before about how this is almost Trump’s signature achievement — getting his opponents to spell out what they actually mean, stripped of all euphemism.

Pessimist that I am, I don’t think this bodes well for the future; when people take such uncompromising positions, it suggests that they can foresee no outcome in which they might need to walk back their previous statements. They expect either to crush or be crushed.

On the other hand, maybe I’m overestimating their capacity for shame. Public life is full of people who have been repeatedly, catastrophically wrong and are still out there lecturing the rest of us on How Things Should Be.

Much as Steve coined the term “late Obama-age collapse,” I’d like to propose “The Great Clarification” for the Trump years

I’m going to borrow this. Thanks.

I think the truly great Clarifying has been on the Right, with Team Trot making the short, happy journey back to the Left.

Let’s leave all this open land for Americans to enjoy. The cost for bringing in all these immigrants is so high. The tax payer is shelling out over 300,000 dollars per child to educate over a lifetime. This doesnt include free lunch, welfare, food stamps section 8 ect. A low wage laborer simply can not cover those costs. Besides the cost our culture and political scene is changed for the worse with too many immigrants.

We have decades of experience with what happens with immigrants from points south and their progeny. Nearly all of them work low-paid hourly wage jobs and earn substantially less than the average American household, their kids do marginally better, and their grandchildren do just a bit better than their parents, so several generations on, they are still overwhelmingly low education/low skill workers making less than $20 an hour.

This isn't to say they are bad people, but given that a) our economy no longer provides a lot of decently-paid jobs for people with limited skills and education, b) we already have tens of millions of Americans that fall into this basket, all we are doing is importing a huge and potentially permanent underclass that cost society far more than it will every put in, all while hurting the hardest to employ Americans.

We don't need millions of new lower-income people to keep our economy humming, we only need it so the upper class has enough gardeners and back of the house restaurant labor and so the Democrats can electorally override the interests of the middle class.

It’s a perversion of normal market mechanisms, anyway. Supply and demand: employers should be as subject to this as anyone else. You need to pay more money or give more benefits to get the workers to come to you, that’s what you need to do.

Nowhere in Adam Smith does it mention that employers should get a permanent subsidy to keep wages low through mass immigration.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

It DOES improve the quality of life, if a country is less densely settled. The average WELFARE RECIPIENT in the US lives on more space than the average German/Swede/Brit.

It also reduces a lot of conflict-potential between neighbours, if each household consists of a detached house instead of an apartment or houses that share walls, like in Germany, Sweden or Britain. In Germany there are a lot of court-cases dealing with things like the time you are allowed to use your washing machine or the number of times you can do a barbecue on your balcony each year. These cases would not exist, if most Germans lived in detached houses.

Sema Hernandez: YOU are illegal in this country that belongs to my ancestors. Secretary Nielsen’s white supremacy must end. This happens generation after generation. I’ll be damned to hell if I let it happen again.

“Sema Hernandez: YOU are illegal in this country that belongs to my ancestors. Secretary Nielsen’s white supremacy must end. This happens generation after generation. I’ll be damned to hell if I let it happen again.”

I love getting lectures on conquest and white privilege from people named Hernandez. Real Aztec name you have there bitch.

For instance, overdraft charges are a little higher. Overdrafts are small, unsecured loans, and only poor people ever abandon a bank account after an overdraft. Higher risk, higher fees. Welcome to life.

What about the converse – high delinquency rates of blacks and browns is driving up the interest rates that whites, who overwhelmingly pay on time, have to bear?

The whole open borders cheer section, from NYT, to Cato, to the Economist, etc. must just be working off of muscle memory now. They can't even believe their own stuff anymore, can they? Stephens knows there's no way to assign immigrants to empty places, and that they'll congregate in the same crowded conurbations they do now.

Cato tweeted recently about how few hours an average worker needs to work to buy a color TV today, compared with 50 years ago. They never do the same comparison for housing, healthcare, or education.

Housing, healthcare, and education are annual expenses for a family.

A color TV? What’s that–once a decade? And I’ve never spent more than $300…

Toronto’s Globe and Mail is clearly trolling ISteve fans with this article – especially the bit about the freshly-arrived LGBTQ activist from the Bahamas, who wants to get into politics in Canada once he’s settled down with his trans partner…!

From the article:

Mr. Miller had wanted to run for political office, but as an openly gay man he couldn’t get nominated. He had proposed to Ms. Mitchell in 2016, back in Freeport, but they were not allowed to marry.

“We had to keep our relationship secret, in order to have a roof over our heads. We weren’t free. We weren’t free in our personal lives, we weren’t free in church, in society,” said Mr. Miller, 29. “We feared for our safety.”

They arrived in May and are living in a homeless shelter currently, doing volunteer work for the 519 in the Gay Village. They’ll be marching in their first Pride Parade this weekend. They hope to marry and pursue new careers (in politics and social work) if their claims are approved.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians

Do current immigrants really want to settle the interior of the country? From what I have read they mainly move to already densely settled areas or areas that also attract a lot of Americans and therefore grow quickly in population size without immigration.

Again, it’s straight out of a parody or some sort of a virulent anti-Semitic tract. This one is particularly cute: https://mobile.twitter.com/jewishaction/status/1010130085200977921

Sema Hernandez: YOU are illegal in this country that belongs to my ancestors. Secretary Nielsen's white supremacy must end. This happens generation after generation. I'll be damned to hell if I let it happen again.

“Sema Hernandez: YOU are illegal in this country that belongs to my ancestors. Secretary Nielsen’s white supremacy must end. This happens generation after generation. I’ll be damned to hell if I let it happen again.”

I love getting lectures on conquest and white privilege from people named Hernandez. Real Aztec name you have there bitch.

How is it possible that these commentators continuously get away with spewing such absolute hatred of Americans?

We’re lazy. We’re immoral. We’re racist. We’re spoiled. We’re stupid.

Also, $3 billion is a rounding error in an economy of $16 Trillion. Meanwhile, immigrants remit over $50 billion to other countries, and we have a trade deficit of $500 billion. Those outflows are meaningless to the globalist class, though.

Israel certainly views “immigrants” as making better citizens than the native population. They’ve locked millions of dispossessed Palestinians in Bantustans to form a Jewish ethnostate. They’re also trying to deporting tens of thousands of African refugees. It’s absolutely outrageous and offensive that the author would dare mention Israel as a model for immigration.

Jeff Bezos is the richest man on the planet. And to be fair his editors did allow a column to be published today criticizing immigration. Leftist comments were ruthless.

Of course, DC would have a lot less traffic problems if mass immigration had been stopped after the Jordan Commission. But all those gridlocked roads killed the red state Virginia and stole two Senators in perpetuity.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

And this is where liberals do themselves zero favors.

Assimilation has become a bad word. The melting pot is appropriation and oppression.

Don’t ask people about their heritage. That’s a micro-aggression.

How dare you ask people to speak English? Don’t you know there’s no official language? We’ll be so much better off when there’s no single common language.

Bret Stephens and Paul Krugman and Donny Deutsch and David Brooks and Jennifer Rubin and many more Media Jews are actively engaged in a War On Whitey.

Anti-White Media Jews Now Control NBC/Comcast

Anti-White Media Jews Now Control ABC/Disney

Anti-White Media Jews Now Control CBS/Viacom

Anti-White Neo-Conservatives Now Control Murdoch’s Media Empire Which Includes Fox News And The Wall Street Journal

Anti-White Media Jews Control The New York Times

Watch the subtle eye roll given by the guy with the German surname at 0:50 seconds:

Phony "Tough Guy on Morning Joe" @DonnyDeutsch says Normal Americans who support President Trump are Nazis—Trump's supporters need to be the target now, not him, and they need to be dealt with. pic.twitter.com/cV8eGLBNh1

US in the middle of that list. Places like Brazil are much less densely populated than the US. Countries like Libya are at the very low end of the list in terms of people/area. If the issue is just unused land, Libya should be a top destination not US.

Next, Europe has very densely population in terms of people/area. Africa is sparsely populated. Also within all countries, people are moving away from undesirable cities to mega cities or suburbs around those mega cities. In the US, people are fleeing places like Youngstown and moving to Austin, TX. In Italy, people flee these tiny remote villages and want to all live in Milan and Florence. In Africa, people are fleeing the countryside and moving to mega cities like Kinshasa. In China, people migrate from sparsely populated towns to highly populated places like Singapore (separate country of course).

Guys like Bret Stephens are pushing the policy of more immigration to US + Europe, and just throwing any argument and every argument that they can think of to justify that. And when arguments like population/area stats seem to point in the other direction, he just moves on to the next rationalization to find something that will stick.

Don’t criticize the man. Accept his argument at face value. Since the USA is underpopulated, and that’s a bad thing, we can only accept people from countries whose population density is higher than ours.

However, because climate change is also a bad thing, and carbon emissions “cause” it, and Americans use more energy than a lot of people, and we surely don’t want to increase carbon emissions, we can only accept people from countries whose carbon emissions per capita are within 10% of ours. There. A perfectly consistent immigration system that will permit, maybe, Bahrainis to move here.

It's a perversion of normal market mechanisms, anyway. Supply and demand: employers should be as subject to this as anyone else. You need to pay more money or give more benefits to get the workers to come to you, that's what you need to do.

Nowhere in Adam Smith does it mention that employers should get a permanent subsidy to keep wages low through mass immigration.

Nowhere in Adam Smith does it mention that employers should get a permanent subsidy to keep wages low through mass immigration.

The GOP CHEAP LABOR FACTION don’t give a shit about no Adam Smith asshole or some bullshit book written in 1776.

That cheesy, irritating, over produced commercial aside, she is in a heavily GOP district where dems are outnumber almost 2 to 1. Much of Austin is liberal but a suburb like Round Rock doesn't have a lot of patience for a former ACLU type.

Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime. These are the kind of attributes Republicans claim to admire.

This gets thrown around a lot, and I best I was able to tell the source was a distant study tracking legal immigrants beginning in the 1960s. But Open Borders Extremists like Stephens infer if not outright state that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives which I believe to be entirely false. Additionally, isn’t comparing someone who has spent a significant portion of his or her life (usually, the youthful years) with someone who has always lived in the United States apples and oranges? Somehow the immigrant is better because he committed his crimes during his late teens and early twenties while residing in Honduras.

TL;DR: He has a decent job. His wife paid $6,000 to smuggle their youngest child (leaving the other three back in Honduras) into the States against his wishes, was not separated from her child, and is now claiming "political asylum". That is, her asylum case is bullshit and she endangered her child to emotionally blackmail the authorities because her middle-class-for-Honduras existence just wasn't good enough.

So what didn't we already know?

Many times msm tv news show an entire family of four, as being so poor and living lives in abject poverty in mexico, and then also state how said poor Mexicans seeking better pay/jobs/lives etc had to Pay some Mexican cayote smuggler guy $40,000 for family to get smuggled into usa.

How many Pesos equals $40,000 us dollars value eh? How swell can so much us dollars create a life of Reilly back in mexico?

It seems for past 20 years or so, that Mexican illegals and in cahoots with every msm have an agenda to out lie and out scam jews, and become number one liars and scammers so to displace jews from their top status position as such.

Amazingly, Dems might win an open US House seat in WV that Trump won by 50 points.

That cheesy, irritating, over produced commercial aside, she is in a heavily GOP district where dems are outnumber almost 2 to 1. Much of Austin is liberal but a suburb like Round Rock doesn’t have a lot of patience for a former ACLU type.

Yes, America has empty spaces but that is a natural resource for Americans, not the rest of the world. Who knows what will happen in the future. We are quite lucky to have such a vast territory. Maybe one day we will need additional farmland. Maybe one day new mineral finds will prove valuable. Maybe one day as other parts of the nation become less inhabitable our reserve lands will come into play. But this won't happen if we fill it up with other peoples.

I live in the midwest and am close to those empty spaces. I've notice a lot of those empty spaces have now transitioned into more sprawl from the Kansas City area. What was once prime farmland is now being covered by concrete, homes and shopping centers. What a waste.

Additionally consider that the nation is already fully settled, despite the empty spaces, and has been that way since at least WW2. We no longer have hungry factories demanding more labor. Our trade policies have seen to that. We no longer have a military of 12 million men.

In 1967 we hit 200 million people. At that time we were represented by 100 senators and 435 representatives. Today we have at least 325 million, yet we are still represented by 100 senators and 435 representatives. So it's clear that our votes have been watered down somewhat.

Finally, people should check the CIA World Factbook to examine the rest of the world. Check out the list of the most populous nations on earth. The USA is already #3 on this list far ahead of the rest of the pack. Only China and India exceed us. In fact I don't think any nation in history other than China or India has ever had more than we do now. Note if the USA still had its world war two population figure of 140 million, we would still be in the top 10! Yet we have more than doubled since that time and they demand more growth.

This list does not appear to be something that equates to wealth or desirability. Sure China has a large economy, but those with money seem to want to leave. The fact we have reputable opinion leaders in this nation urging us to meet the challenge of Bangladesh and Nigeria is preposterous.

The article itself reads so irrationally and at odds with the facts, I am tempted to think he is just trolling the readership.

Seriously – comparing the immigration policies of Israel to the US? Israel has a wall. Israel has pretty strict criteria as to the types of immigrants it will allow.

Someone ought to write a rebuttal to Stephens’s article, and lay the immigration policies (and stats) of Israel side by side with the US and ask him, “Do you want the US to adopt these rules?” He is not a good enough tap dancer to escape.

As far as America being “wide open,” the problem is denominators as others say.

Here in San Francisco, the median house price last month topped $1.6 million. Other than filthy, deranged “homeless” defecating on the streets, smashing car windows, and leaving used needles in Muni stations, house prices are the top issue.

Hey bret, does that mean no africans,muslims ,asians, latin americans etc. etc. unless they belong to a certain religion? OK we’ll take young white women from northern europe , even tiny duck would agree with that.

The only thing good about multiculturalism is the food, and Jews only care about food, and sex, and money. The more people you have, the more potential partners to have sex with, more customers to sell to, and more cheap labor. To hell with culture and social cohesion, Jews are always the outsiders anyway. Make everyone an outsider and they won’t be the only outsiders anymore. Win win win win for the Jews.

It's a perversion of normal market mechanisms, anyway. Supply and demand: employers should be as subject to this as anyone else. You need to pay more money or give more benefits to get the workers to come to you, that's what you need to do.

Nowhere in Adam Smith does it mention that employers should get a permanent subsidy to keep wages low through mass immigration.

Nowhere in Adam Smith does it mention that employers should get a permanent subsidy to keep wages low through mass immigration.

Yes. In fact Adam Smith lived in a time and place characterized by mass emigration.

The article itself reads so irrationally and at odds with the facts, I am tempted to think he is just trolling the readership.

Seriously - comparing the immigration policies of Israel to the US? Israel has a wall. Israel has pretty strict criteria as to the types of immigrants it will allow.

Someone ought to write a rebuttal to Stephens's article, and lay the immigration policies (and stats) of Israel side by side with the US and ask him, "Do you want the US to adopt these rules?" He is not a good enough tap dancer to escape.

As far as America being "wide open," the problem is denominators as others say.

Here in San Francisco, the median house price last month topped $1.6 million. Other than filthy, deranged "homeless" defecating on the streets, smashing car windows, and leaving used needles in Muni stations, house prices are the top issue.

Guess what? More than ONE THIRD of the residents of the city are immigrants. (http://www.civicdashboards.com/city/san-francisco-ca-16000US0667000/percent_foreign_born)

In California as a whole, the number is close to 30%. Over the past 40 years, without foreign immigration, our state would have had net out-migration.

If San Francisco had 35% fewer residents, what would it cost to have (and raise) a family here?

This guy is either insane, stupid, or just a liar.

Over the past 40 years, without foreign immigration, our state would have had net out-migration.

Well, less than we’ve in fact had, as Americans would have had fewer reasons to leave.

Jewish newspaper. Jewish columnist. Idolizes Israel. Condescending. Claims superior morals and intelligence. Cites anti-Semitism. Lectures us on what is un-American. Makes comparison to Israeli immigration, but skips the part about Israel only letting Jews in. Doesn't mention Hitler, but trashes Trump as if he were Hitler.

These guys are getting very predictable.

Every article like this kosherized clowns, just causes me to buy more ammo. Then I alert my rural white neighbors to such articles and infos and agendas, then they too go buy more ammo.

Because America is far past any voting or political methods of a real Fix ever happening now. So that leaves just One major option. And the more these lib and neocon and kosher clowns keep pushing, the faster it all is going to break out. I sure am very glad I was not born into any of named clown groups. For once they start it all off…They will run and find no places to hide from 50+ Million royally pissed off real americans that created and maintain this nation of America. It will turn a typical Boot out event into a Take out event.

And with each day that passes now, most every of the nations biggest population group of Boomers, has less and less to lose. This has obviously been a huge miscalculation on the part of the clowns and kosherized fools eh….I think they long ago planned these agendas to wait until most boomers grew too old to fight etc….But changes in lifestyles and medical etc. has created what used to be an too old man or woman of past eras, into a much more youthful group in general, even though being same old person ages as in past eras.

In other words, unlike every of the 109 prior nationwide Boot-Outs the kosherized have experienced in past 1800 years, this time around they will likely discover that they have bit off way more than they can ever jew. And so too will those African and Mexican ghetto dwellers and gangbangers once they start the ball rolling. Most every rural White I know of is chomping at the bit, and have been this way a long while now.

And of course, the low native fertility rates in immigrant-thick places in America have nothing to do with immigrants bidding up housing costs, bidding down wages, and stressing public schools.

Nowhere has this been more obvious than in California over the past 30 years. Except in Silicon Valley, the public schools are unusable by white parents who care about their children’s safety and basic education. Private schools ($$$) and home schooling ($) are their only options. After high school, CA resident white children must go out of state for a decent college education because the University of California and Cal State systems, originally built for the taxpaying white middle class, have morphed into a heavily federally subsidized University of China and Chicano State, where the dumbed-down humanities curriculum and social atmosphere are engineered either to exclude whites or make them feel like second class citizens. Usually whites don’t return to CA after college because either they can’t buy property in the neighborhoods where they grew up or they don’t want to be tax cows milked by the Permanent Progressive Majority.

For his part, this is exactly what Merkley predicts Trump will do between now and November. He told me in our interview that he considers Trump a “fear” candidate from a Republican Party that had learned to run what Merkley called the “three-terrors strategy”: pick three issues that scare the American public, and emphasize them at all costs. As the midterms approach, he predicted, illegal immigration will be one of Trump’s main rallying cries, never mind this week’s debacle over separating migrant children from their parents. Merkley acknowledged that his more cautious Democratic colleagues could well be right: changing the subject to immigration plays into the President’s hands. “I just feel like when you see children being mistreated, forget the politics,” Merkley told me. “You’ve got to call it out as completely wrong.”

The Dems want to take a victory lap. Just saw Trump on Bloomberg doing an ‘Angel Family’ event. Its clear that Trump got a beatdown on optics, but isn’t about to do any more than a tactical retreat. And this is a guy that loves his cheap labor.

How is it possible that these commentators continuously get away with spewing such absolute hatred of Americans?

We're lazy. We're immoral. We're racist. We're spoiled. We're stupid.

Also, $3 billion is a rounding error in an economy of $16 Trillion. Meanwhile, immigrants remit over $50 billion to other countries, and we have a trade deficit of $500 billion. Those outflows are meaningless to the globalist class, though.

Israel certainly views "immigrants" as making better citizens than the native population. They've locked millions of dispossessed Palestinians in Bantustans to form a Jewish ethnostate. They're also trying to deporting tens of thousands of African refugees. It's absolutely outrageous and offensive that the author would dare mention Israel as a model for immigration.

Jeff Bezos is the richest man on the planet. And to be fair his editors did allow a column to be published today criticizing immigration. Leftist comments were ruthless.

Of course, DC would have a lot less traffic problems if mass immigration had been stopped after the Jordan Commission. But all those gridlocked roads killed the red state Virginia and stole two Senators in perpetuity.

The Supreme Court just forced Amazon to pay state sales tax everywhere. The only way Bezos is going to get out of this is to have a law passed to protect internet commerce from taxation. That tax bill would have to be signed by the president whom Bezos has been stupidly antagonizing for the last 2 years. The only way Bezos is going to get Trump to sign that law is to kiss Trump's butt from now on. Bezos is greedy enough to do it.

It’s nice that they’re spinning their wheels, it’s to be expected that they will never admit they were wrong about anything, but why can’t we have a killing blow or a categoric exclusion of anyone who believes that not speaking English and openly wanting the abrogation of the Constitution makes you a “better American”?

“What are they playing? This makes no sense, though; I’m a pretty avid gamer and I’ve met more Serbian white gamers than I’ve met black or hispanic gamers.”

I see a lot of black women on the train playing Candy Crush style games. Those count too.

I wonder, has anyone calculated the amount of time Americans are spending on Candy Crush and other mindless yet addictive games? My guess is it must be millions of hours a month. What a waste.

That was might thought also, they are playing whatever game is currently popular on cell phones, not gaming on a Playstation or XBox. I completely agree about the time wasted playing these games but don’t know how it could be calculated. So many people go to anytime they have a free moment, they can’t risk boredom for a second.

OT You know what they say about pitbulls.
>Sophia Lösche, a 28-year-old German “refugees welcome” activist, was found dead yesterday around 3.20 pm at the Egino gas station in the community of Asparrena in Álava, Spain, Bild reports.

>For a week, nothing was known about her whereabouts since she boarded a truck with Moroccan license plates in Schkeuditz, East Germany. She hitchhiked to her hometown Bamberg, about 260 kilometers south.

>A Civil Guard traffic control stopped the truck on Tuesday on a road near the Spanish city of Bailén in Jaén. The driver wanted to go to the Strait of Gibraltar, take a ferry and get off in Morocco, where he wanted to protect himself from European justice.

>On Wednesday he was transferred to the Central Examining Court No. 6 of the Audiencia Nacional. His confession made it possible to locate the body of the young woman yesterday, her case had been reported in the German media after her family reported her disappearance 24 hours after her death.

>She had worked with an NGO on the Greek island of Lesbos, where she helped these so-called refugees. Sources consulted by the media emphasized that the body showed “clear symptoms of violence”. The perpetrator had obviously intended to rape her.

>The autopsy, which will probably be performed today in the Department of Forensic Pathology in Vitoria, will determine the cause of death. Also the approximate time at which it happened, so that we can determine whether it was in Germany, France or the Basque Country. This will clarify which court will handle the case.

So many excellent details, but I think the best is the other three children. I mean, separating a child from their parent appears to be the ultimate evil and 3 separations >> 1 separation.

Has any American media outlet picked this up?

I mean, separating a child from their parent appears to be the ultimate evil and 3 separations >> 1 separation.

It’s – ehh, – – – is it complicated or simple?

The simple version is this: They’re trying, trying oh so hard, an all they are able to accomplish so far is one child coming back to his parents – which is way better than n o child, see?! And if there’d be only a little bit more of the human opennness and caring, Bret Stephens and the NYT are aiming at, the oppressed family would happily reunite the other two kids with their loving parents an their sibling ASAP!!

Take that!

(And except for that: Steve Sailer’s article is just perfect – one more future classic (Btw.: I hope that there will be a “best of”).

Fifth: The immigrant share (including the undocumented) of the U.S. population is not especially large: About 13.5 percent, high by recent history but below its late 19th century peak of 14.8 percent.

Yeah, and just look at what a low-achieving place the USA was during the low immigration interval of 1924-1965....All we did was build the atomic bomb, defeat the Japanese in the Pacific, create Information Theory, produce great films (Citizen Kane, Red River, The Searchers, The Maltese Falcon, The Women, etc), write great works of literature (The Great Gatsby, The Big Sleep, Absalom, Absalom!, A Farewell to Arms, etc), break the Sound Barrier, invent the laser, .....

If only we had had more Latinx....Who knows what we might have accomplished.....

The Women? Great? Oh for goodness sakes.

And were no great musicals created during this era? (e.g. The Gay Divorcee; On the Town; Singin’ in the Rain; West Side Story; etc.). Or Westerns? (e.g. Shane; High Noon; The Searchers; etc).

OT You know what they say about pitbulls.
>Sophia Lösche, a 28-year-old German “refugees welcome” activist, was found dead yesterday around 3.20 pm at the Egino gas station in the community of Asparrena in Álava, Spain, Bild reports.

>For a week, nothing was known about her whereabouts since she boarded a truck with Moroccan license plates in Schkeuditz, East Germany. She hitchhiked to her hometown Bamberg, about 260 kilometers south.

>A Civil Guard traffic control stopped the truck on Tuesday on a road near the Spanish city of Bailén in Jaén. The driver wanted to go to the Strait of Gibraltar, take a ferry and get off in Morocco, where he wanted to protect himself from European justice.

>On Wednesday he was transferred to the Central Examining Court No. 6 of the Audiencia Nacional. His confession made it possible to locate the body of the young woman yesterday, her case had been reported in the German media after her family reported her disappearance 24 hours after her death.

>She had worked with an NGO on the Greek island of Lesbos, where she helped these so-called refugees. Sources consulted by the media emphasized that the body showed “clear symptoms of violence”. The perpetrator had obviously intended to rape her.

>The autopsy, which will probably be performed today in the Department of Forensic Pathology in Vitoria, will determine the cause of death. Also the approximate time at which it happened, so that we can determine whether it was in Germany, France or the Basque Country. This will clarify which court will handle the case.

There is a huge, sordid, undiscussed sexual element to the whole refugee thing. Many volunteers have been caught sleeping with their charges. It's comparable to how blacks and mestizos are allowed to be unapologetically masculine and suggests that, if the credulity theorists are right and it's all just a series of accidents, white men could've changed things by being more boorish.

Most of these women helping and supporting influx of refugees just want to be oppressed, dominated and feel "the real" man. Most White Europeans or Americans are not allowed to be men, to do what men are supposed to do, masculinity and traditional male/female roles are ridiculed and destroyed by the left.
And man who stands out even elitist billionaire risks being punished, crushed by feminists and their lobby an ostracized by society. Even rich and successful White males have to constantly apologize, virtue-signal and so on.

Jeff Bezos is the richest man on the planet. And to be fair his editors did allow a column to be published today criticizing immigration. Leftist comments were ruthless.

Of course, DC would have a lot less traffic problems if mass immigration had been stopped after the Jordan Commission. But all those gridlocked roads killed the red state Virginia and stole two Senators in perpetuity.

The Supreme Court just forced Amazon to pay state sales tax everywhere. The only way Bezos is going to get out of this is to have a law passed to protect internet commerce from taxation. That tax bill would have to be signed by the president whom Bezos has been stupidly antagonizing for the last 2 years. The only way Bezos is going to get Trump to sign that law is to kiss Trump’s butt from now on. Bezos is greedy enough to do it.

Amazon collects sales tax for items sold by Amazon, but third party sellers on Amazon didn't collect sales tax. The profit engine of Amazon is Web Services, retail is run at break-even or a loss during some quarters/in certain countries.

To really hurt Amazon you need to unionize the company and then have the union balk at more automation. The various states are still giving the company tax incentives whenever a warehouse opens.

Removing the online sales tax loophole will greatly increase the revenue of most states, which will be quickly consumed by higher Medicaid spending. Congress isn't voting that away, no matter how much the Chamber complains, the AARP is a far more potent threat.

So, does this mean that we get double taxation now? In the state where shipping originates, and in the destination state? Do the two have to split the haul? I'm sympathetic, but WTF has the destination state done to deserve any tax money? I guess you could call it a consumption tax...

I swear I want to strangle someone, every time I hear about "lost" tax revenues. NO, YOU HAVE NOT "LOST" REVENUE WHEN YOUR SONG IS PIRATED, OR WHEN SOMEONE IN ANOTHER STATE SELLS PRODUCTS TO PEOPLE IN YOUR STATE, ETC., YOU RENT-SEEKING VAMPIRE LAWYER.

You summed it up right here: “And of course, the low native fertility rates in immigrant-thick places in America have nothing to do with immigrants bidding up housing costs, bidding down wages, and stressing public schools.“

Anybody else find Indian women attractive? I mean, if you can’t find a white woman. Isn’t that a nice alternative?

It DOES improve the quality of life, if a country is less densely settled. The average WELFARE RECIPIENT in the US lives on more space than the average German/Swede/Brit.

It also reduces a lot of conflict-potential between neighbours, if each household consists of a detached house instead of an apartment or houses that share walls, like in Germany, Sweden or Britain. In Germany there are a lot of court-cases dealing with things like the time you are allowed to use your washing machine or the number of times you can do a barbecue on your balcony each year. These cases would not exist, if most Germans lived in detached houses.

Germany is a first world economy, are you saying that most Germans cannot afford to live in a detached house? Are there no suburbs in Germany that contain detached houses?

If not, why not?

Or perhaps it isn’t a part of German culture to want to live in detached houses as it is in the US.

… America is vast, largely empty and often lonely. Roughly 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, covering just 3 percent of the overall landmass. We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K.

We could use some more people. Make that a lot more.

"We?"

Who the hell is this "we," Mr. Stephens? I just so happen to be one of the "lonely" critters in the "vast, largely empty" landmass that's not part of your urbanized 3%.

The population density of my town is 38 per square kilometer, and I find it plenty crowded. In fact, I'd like to find a place with a population density maybe a third or a quarter of that. You can let all the immigrants you want into your country -- Israel. I don't want any more in mine.

I grew up in a nation of 200 million. Now it's 320 million. I don't need any more immigrants for anything -- period.

Specifically, “we” is the Jews, pro-immigration fanatics from the far left to the neoconservatives, surely not the tens of millions of working- and middle-class whites who voted for Trump. Abstractly, “we” is the “proposition nation,” America as an “idea” or “creed.”

True, but included in the mix is the ability to harness these resources. Africa is rich in natural resources but the indigent population evidently lacks the ability or willingness to do so.

“True, but included in the mix is the ability to harness these resources. Africa is rich in natural resources but the indigent population evidently lacks the ability or willingness to do so.”

Yes, that’s a big part of it. I also think that maybe another factor is the ability to switch your resource production on and off based on market demand. A banana republic has to sell bananas no matter the price. A developed economy can throttle production if prices fall too low. In fact they almost have to, since the market price probably won’t cover the cost of paying your workers. Keep your population density low by not flooding your country with immigrants. Keep your population European.

Who the hell is this “we,” Mr. Stephens? I just so happen to be one of the “lonely” critters in the “vast, largely empty” landmass that’s not part of your urbanized 3%.

This is a key point that people need to be made to understand. People like Bret Stephens are not part of 'we'. They are a hostile, alien people who seek to disenfranchise us in our own home.

Wide-open, empty spaces are part of America's patrimony. A desire to turn the whole country into a sweaty, urban hell-hole is un-American. It isn't who we are. The real we, that is, not fake wes who write for the New York Times.

If we don’t turn broad swathes of America into overpopulated cities, how else can we all become rootless cosmopolitans? We got an olam to tikkun here!

Stephens writes like someone who has never taken a cross country drive. The Ogallala Aquifer has been falling short of it’s replenishment rate for decades, so Stephens needs to figure out how places like Lebanaon, Kansas can become a megacitites without adequate aqua before he starts digging.

Stephens and his ilk look at places like eastern New Mexico and NE Arizona, and wonder why we just can't put a few million people right there in those big open spots? There they sit, wide open, sparsely populated, just waiting for millions of people to settle there in stephens mind. Stephens only knows that his water comes from the tap and that food comes from the grocery store.

Anyone who has flown a light plane over Middle America, especially west of the Mississippi, understands why there are large amounts of uninhabited land in the continental US: it's largely uninhabitable except by very resourceful people in low density environments willing to live without all the stuff bicoastals cannot imagine there not being. They can't even tolerate small town or suburban living in relatively lush areas.

Kansas, for instance, has almost all of its population east of Wichita, and Wichita is only a third of the way west from the state line. And half of that is a historical artifact of people wanting to be just over the state line from Pendergast's Kansas City and Jackson County.

I wonder what source (if any) Stephens is using to make the claim that immigrants are more church-going. Pew Research Center statistics don't support this assertion. Sure, most immigrants to the U.S. are from largely Catholic Latin America, but most legal immigration to the U.S. involves people who are significantly less likely to be Christian than native-born Americans are. Perhaps Stephens used "church-going" when he should have said more "religious."

if they are church-going, they’re suckered into weird charismatic sects

Truly democratic republics ALL have fewer than 100k per representative. I think the WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) average I calculated in that article was 89k per rep. That means a House of Representatives at least 3200 in size if we go for 100k per rep.

The people opposing this would be the representatives from Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, who would lose relative strength in the electoral college. Right now, with 579k people, 1/500th of the population, Wyoming has 3/535 of the electoral votes, or 1/178 of them, and almost 3-1 advantage, while a resident of Kollivornia has a much smaller effect on the electoral vote. If Wyoming went to 6 representatives under a 100k plan, then it would have 1/412th of a Congress with 3200 representatives, and the same percentage of the electoral vote.

Why are Jews afraid of sparsely populated areas? It’s an honest question. In the eastern suburbs of Cleveland, there’s plenty of cheap land and anyone can have a single-family home. Yet there’s a cluster of very large high-rise apartment buildings sticking out like sore thumbs along I-271 that are heavily Jewish. What’s up with that?

Open spaces can bring to the fore physical prowess, making for a habitat in which Jews are relatively disadvantaged compared to European Gentiles. Physical attributes such as foot speed, eye-hand coordination, far-sightedness, and strength have less purchase in dense urban environments.

To answer my own question from my previous post, the only practical solution I can come up with is breaking up the USA into separate nations.

The nation I would choose to live in would not bar negroes, Jews, or any other ethnic group. But the policies of that nation (extreme nationalism with no affirmative action) would discourage most non-whites from having any desire to live there.

Non-whites (and I include Jews in that category) who adhere to those values would be welcome.

If it was only between illegals and native born US Blacks, Stephens is right. US Negros have bad outcomes and Latin American migrants are much better. Stephens is talking about Negro replacement, Right? Can't argue, but I thought this was unspeakable. He just needs to spell it out.

Chicago has gone all in on this. Best thing that has happened in decades. Otherwise we would have had predictably bas black mayors. As such, we only had to survive Harold Washington.

To the low-end southwestern suburbs as well as Rockford and Dubuque out west. They’ve also shipped a good deal to Peoria and Springfield. I’ve also read that many went back to the southern states as well.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

Nope. America has more than enough people already. Some people don’t look for every last spot they can possibly pave over.

Let's leave all this open land for Americans to enjoy. The cost for bringing in all these immigrants is so high. The tax payer is shelling out over 300,000 dollars per child to educate over a lifetime. This doesnt include free lunch, welfare, food stamps section 8 ect. A low wage laborer simply can not cover those costs. Besides the cost our culture and political scene is changed for the worse with too many immigrants.

A low wage laborer simply can not cover those costs.

As one Peter Schaeffer notably and simply demonstrated on another blog, the migrants can’t even cover their own Medicaid costs.

$12 per hour per worker. God bless Peter Schaeffer. And, wow, did God ever make the numbers ripe for the picking! Three trillion dollars divided by 250 billions hours. Wow -- those numbers are easy to work with and remember!

Why are Jews afraid of sparsely populated areas? It's an honest question. In the eastern suburbs of Cleveland, there's plenty of cheap land and anyone can have a single-family home. Yet there's a cluster of very large high-rise apartment buildings sticking out like sore thumbs along I-271 that are heavily Jewish. What's up with that?

Because they’ve spent thousands of years crammed into densely populated urban areas. It’s just in their DNA at this point.

The Supreme Court just forced Amazon to pay state sales tax everywhere. The only way Bezos is going to get out of this is to have a law passed to protect internet commerce from taxation. That tax bill would have to be signed by the president whom Bezos has been stupidly antagonizing for the last 2 years. The only way Bezos is going to get Trump to sign that law is to kiss Trump's butt from now on. Bezos is greedy enough to do it.

Amazon collects sales tax for items sold by Amazon, but third party sellers on Amazon didn’t collect sales tax. The profit engine of Amazon is Web Services, retail is run at break-even or a loss during some quarters/in certain countries.

To really hurt Amazon you need to unionize the company and then have the union balk at more automation. The various states are still giving the company tax incentives whenever a warehouse opens.

Removing the online sales tax loophole will greatly increase the revenue of most states, which will be quickly consumed by higher Medicaid spending. Congress isn’t voting that away, no matter how much the Chamber complains, the AARP is a far more potent threat.

We have enough immigrants. We could use more settlers. Settlers(like the early European Americans) move to unpopulated areas and build entire cities from scratch, whereas immigrants move to areas that have already been built by somebody else.

Again, it’s straight out of a parody or some sort of a virulent anti-Semitic tract. This one is particularly cute: https://mobile.twitter.com/jewishaction/status/1010130085200977921

Sema Hernandez: YOU are illegal in this country that belongs to my ancestors. Secretary Nielsen's white supremacy must end. This happens generation after generation. I'll be damned to hell if I let it happen again.

Sema Hernandez: YOU are illegal in this country that belongs to my ancestors.

Although I don't consider myself an anti-semite, I have to agree with you, Gunnar, to some extent: that is, throughout my life I have had many excellent relationships, educational, professional and amorous, with Jews and never felt the slightest reason to start generalizing negatively about them. (I would go further perhaps, but Bret Stephens has already, in a previous column, made clear his contempt for non-Jews who say that some of their best friends are Jews.) But since I started paying attention to the major newspapers and magazines, I have had for the sake of my intellectual integrity to read as much as I could about Jews and anti-semitism, because for the life of me I can't see why so many of them insist on being so insulting to non-Jewish white people.

…for the life of me I can’t see why so many of them insist on being so insulting to non-Jewish white people.

The Supreme Court just forced Amazon to pay state sales tax everywhere. The only way Bezos is going to get out of this is to have a law passed to protect internet commerce from taxation. That tax bill would have to be signed by the president whom Bezos has been stupidly antagonizing for the last 2 years. The only way Bezos is going to get Trump to sign that law is to kiss Trump's butt from now on. Bezos is greedy enough to do it.

So, does this mean that we get double taxation now? In the state where shipping originates, and in the destination state? Do the two have to split the haul? I’m sympathetic, but WTF has the destination state done to deserve any tax money? I guess you could call it a consumption tax…

I swear I want to strangle someone, every time I hear about “lost” tax revenues. NO, YOU HAVE NOT “LOST” REVENUE WHEN YOUR SONG IS PIRATED, OR WHEN SOMEONE IN ANOTHER STATE SELLS PRODUCTS TO PEOPLE IN YOUR STATE, ETC., YOU RENT-SEEKING VAMPIRE LAWYER.

Toronto's Globe and Mail is clearly trolling ISteve fans with this article - especially the bit about the freshly-arrived LGBTQ activist from the Bahamas, who wants to get into politics in Canada once he's settled down with his trans partner...!

From the article:

Mr. Miller had wanted to run for political office, but as an openly gay man he couldn’t get nominated. He had proposed to Ms. Mitchell in 2016, back in Freeport, but they were not allowed to marry.

“We had to keep our relationship secret, in order to have a roof over our heads. We weren’t free. We weren’t free in our personal lives, we weren’t free in church, in society,” said Mr. Miller, 29. “We feared for our safety.”

They arrived in May and are living in a homeless shelter currently, doing volunteer work for the 519 in the Gay Village. They’ll be marching in their first Pride Parade this weekend. They hope to marry and pursue new careers (in politics and social work) if their claims are approved.

The best sort of migrant. He just wants to be a transgressive gay politician in whatever country that takes him in.

Hey bret, does that mean no africans,muslims ,asians, latin americans etc. etc. unless they belong to a certain religion? OK we'll take young white women from northern europe , even tiny duck would agree with that.

OK we’ll take young white women from northern europe , even tiny duck would agree with that.

So you want more Sweden YES in your country, huh? I thought Minnesota was enough.

How is it possible that these commentators continuously get away with spewing such absolute hatred of Americans?

We're lazy. We're immoral. We're racist. We're spoiled. We're stupid.

Also, $3 billion is a rounding error in an economy of $16 Trillion. Meanwhile, immigrants remit over $50 billion to other countries, and we have a trade deficit of $500 billion. Those outflows are meaningless to the globalist class, though.

Israel certainly views "immigrants" as making better citizens than the native population. They've locked millions of dispossessed Palestinians in Bantustans to form a Jewish ethnostate. They're also trying to deporting tens of thousands of African refugees. It's absolutely outrageous and offensive that the author would dare mention Israel as a model for immigration.

Good points and totally agree. It was just a given to me that the folks here would understand that the 40+M immigrants today were not ever going to be real Americans they will always be foreigners (aka invaders).

… America is vast, largely empty and often lonely. Roughly 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, covering just 3 percent of the overall landmass. We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K.

We could use some more people. Make that a lot more.

"We?"

Who the hell is this "we," Mr. Stephens? I just so happen to be one of the "lonely" critters in the "vast, largely empty" landmass that's not part of your urbanized 3%.

The population density of my town is 38 per square kilometer, and I find it plenty crowded. In fact, I'd like to find a place with a population density maybe a third or a quarter of that. You can let all the immigrants you want into your country -- Israel. I don't want any more in mine.

I grew up in a nation of 200 million. Now it's 320 million. I don't need any more immigrants for anything -- period.

Hey Stephens, We’re full. Only a select few wealthy, globalist, open borders airheads like stephens can afford to buy their way out of the devastating impacts of overimmigration, or otherwise avoid those impacts. More crime, more traffic, increased housing costs, more ‘diversity’ in neighborhoods where stephens and his ilk don’t live.

Don’t forget the decreasing trust in diverse societies and increases in crimes like identity theft. Everyone has noticed how difficult it is today to make purchases over $100 with a credit card, and to transact many other financial processes because they are being gamed and ripped off by immigrants (there I said it).

Stephens writes like someone who has never taken a cross country drive. The Ogallala Aquifer has been falling short of it's replenishment rate for decades, so Stephens needs to figure out how places like Lebanaon, Kansas can become a megacitites without adequate aqua before he starts digging.

Stephens and his ilk look at places like eastern New Mexico and NE Arizona, and wonder why we just can’t put a few million people right there in those big open spots? There they sit, wide open, sparsely populated, just waiting for millions of people to settle there in stephens mind. Stephens only knows that his water comes from the tap and that food comes from the grocery store.

15:40 I talk about how the Conservative NIMBY scene evolved as a reaction to mass immigration leading to single family homes being turned into apartments in the 80′s and 90′s.

24:10 I talk about how Conservative NIMBY’s are actually sabotaging their own self interest and how the combination of an immigration moratorium and increasing the housing supply could actually lead to a massive increase in the White population in California or at the very least stabilize the exodus of Whites out of California.

Newton is a wealthy Boston suburb that is known for its great school system, among other things. One of those “other things” it’s known for is that it contains a large percentage of Jews among its residents, approximately one-third.

And yet for five years there has been a controversy that pits many parents and students and community members against the school administration for the teaching of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda. It reached somewhat of a crescendo (so far, anyway) recently at an angry meeting in which citizens excoriated the school board.

The following is taken from an email I received from this organization with material from an article that doesn’t seem to have a link yet:

The people you describe don't exist until (((Big Media))) creates them; they pump out this bilge regardless, until the junkies are created and the addiction established.

That way round doesn’t seem like the most parsimonious explanation. It rests on the assumptions that the NYT doesn’t like money, that people are brainwashed by articles they barely read and that there is some sort of eternal blood grudge.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

I think at the bottom what people here don’t want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians…

Jack, this was Pat Buchanan’s point back in the 1990s. Almost literally so: IIRC he asked his liberal interlocutor (probably on the old Crossfire show) whether settling into America would be as easy for a million Watusis as it would be for a million Brits.

At the time it was deemed outrageously beyond the pale; but in those prehistoric times immigration was still an unquestioned good across the political spectrum. Such an opinion is still verboten among our elites, of course. But among people who maintain some attachment to reality, it’s common sense.

I wrote a German friend in Berlin when the Merkel invasion got up to speed asking if he was A-OK with that. He replied that he had a very reliable Turkish car mechanic. And the vast readership of the NYTimes sees illegals (="immigrants) not in the aggregate but individually.

Isn’t that just something people say? It is a throwaway comment to pretend that they have a reason for believing what they think they should.

Are they really stupid to see a category as an individual? That is exactly as stupid as seeing an individual as a category.

NYT readers around here have never seen an illegal in their lives except as some guy their contractor hired. Also NYT sells mostly based on prestige and branding-- "You read the Times? You must be one of us."

We certainly should be expanding the number of Representatives in the house , should start by doubling the number of seats and push to have one. representative for every 300,000 citizens....

Truly democratic republics ALL have fewer than 100k per representative. I think the WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) average I calculated in that article was 89k per rep. That means a House of Representatives at least 3200 in size if we go for 100k per rep.

The people opposing this would be the representatives from Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, who would lose relative strength in the electoral college. Right now, with 579k people, 1/500th of the population, Wyoming has 3/535 of the electoral votes, or 1/178 of them, and almost 3-1 advantage, while a resident of Kollivornia has a much smaller effect on the electoral vote. If Wyoming went to 6 representatives under a 100k plan, then it would have 1/412th of a Congress with 3200 representatives, and the same percentage of the electoral vote.

I think they are far more dangerous to our nation than the feral negroes

No J, no N problem.

You are correct, sir.

To answer my own question from my previous post, the only practical solution I can come up with is breaking up the USA into separate nations.

The nation I would choose to live in would not bar negroes, Jews, or any other ethnic group. But the policies of that nation (extreme nationalism with no affirmative action) would discourage most non-whites from having any desire to live there.

Non-whites (and I include Jews in that category) who adhere to those values would be welcome.

So Man-child Trudeau is opening Canada’s borders to the world. Canada is of course one of the largest land masses on the planet. Trouble that most of the land mass is Taiga, unfarmable or artic, also unfarmable. The immigrants that Trudeau is inviting are headed to the big cities of Canada. Pretty soon the southern edge of Toronto will touch the northern edge of the USA. I say let’s wait and see how Canada plays out.

To the low-end southwestern suburbs as well as Rockford and Dubuque out west. They’ve also shipped a good deal to Peoria and Springfield. I’ve also read that many went back to the southern states as well.

Vast majority of locals in Dubuque are most unhappy with their new neighbors and the local fish wrapper (Telegraph Herald) devotes ink to explaining to them that the new arrivals really are wonderful and how great it is that Dubuque is finally (!) getting some diversity.

Iowa newspapers, incl DM Register and CR Gazette, are extremely far left and to be avoided at all costs.

Every article like this kosherized clowns, just causes me to buy more ammo. Then I alert my rural white neighbors to such articles and infos and agendas, then they too go buy more ammo.

Because America is far past any voting or political methods of a real Fix ever happening now. So that leaves just One major option. And the more these lib and neocon and kosher clowns keep pushing, the faster it all is going to break out. I sure am very glad I was not born into any of named clown groups. For once they start it all off...They will run and find no places to hide from 50+ Million royally pissed off real americans that created and maintain this nation of America. It will turn a typical Boot out event into a Take out event.

And with each day that passes now, most every of the nations biggest population group of Boomers, has less and less to lose. This has obviously been a huge miscalculation on the part of the clowns and kosherized fools eh....I think they long ago planned these agendas to wait until most boomers grew too old to fight etc....But changes in lifestyles and medical etc. has created what used to be an too old man or woman of past eras, into a much more youthful group in general, even though being same old person ages as in past eras.

In other words, unlike every of the 109 prior nationwide Boot-Outs the kosherized have experienced in past 1800 years, this time around they will likely discover that they have bit off way more than they can ever jew. And so too will those African and Mexican ghetto dwellers and gangbangers once they start the ball rolling. Most every rural White I know of is chomping at the bit, and have been this way a long while now.

We used to hear similar tough-talk from the Boer farmers of South Africa 20 years ago. They also had lots of guns and ammo. It hasn’t done them much good.

Stupid to compare since they never had the population numbers of whites in usa do.

As for "Tough Talk"? Wrong again, it is simply reality speak talk. And if You, anon 352, happen to also be a white American, yet have No firearms or are an antigun Lib type Idiot, it will be folks like you who once it all kicks into gear big time. Are going to realize that in Reality there is no/zero middle ground. And all them fence sitter white idiots will run for safe cover to those savage africans and kosher tribe they so worship Now...Only to find that as a white folk, they will be rejected totally then.

Then, when in desperation those stupid fence sitter whites try to get help and safe harbor from well armed and well provisioned patriot whites, they will get turned away as Traitors, as it should be.

The stupid white fools of that bunch will be hated by and fired upon by both sides, while they run to and fro with their hair on fire similar to mikey jacksons famous Pepsi TV Ad incident.

Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime.

So the trick is to make sure that immigrants don't have children......

Fourth: Much of rural or small-town America is emptying out. In hundreds of rural counties, more people are dying than are being born, according to the Department of Agriculture. The same Trumpian conservatives who claim to want to save the American heartland from the fabled Latin American Horde are guaranteeing conditions that over time will turn the heartland into a wasteland.

Which is better? A thinly populated heartland that contains mostly Anglo-Americans? Or a thickly populated heartland that contains vast numbers of Latinx......

I’d like to know if he has asked the people who live in rural America what they think of his groovy new idea.

Jewish newspaper. Jewish columnist. Idolizes Israel. Condescending. Claims superior morals and intelligence. Cites anti-Semitism. Lectures us on what is un-American. Makes comparison to Israeli immigration, but skips the part about Israel only letting Jews in. Doesn't mention Hitler, but trashes Trump as if he were Hitler.

These guys are getting very predictable.

I won’t really know how to react to this article until Max and Jen check in.

Did you know that Africa has about the same population density as the USA? It’s true!

There’s a lot of flyover country in Africa, let me tell you. And it’s not all sacred animal territory, don’t mind that propaganda from NatGeo.

Here’s my plan: put refugees of all sorts in Africa! They just want freedom, I tell you. There are huge swaths of it that nobody is using. Not to mention big places where people have tried to make countries, but failed, like Somalia and Libya.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

I think at the bottom what people here don’t want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don’t think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don’t consider it to be “racist”) but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it’s not that America is “too crowded” (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it’s that you don’t want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

It’s not just the culture it is the race and ethnicity. I don’t want to be inundated by different peoples aping my culture only to scream “racism” at me and that I should let in more of their compatriots. Culture is in a lot of ways a manifestation of personality and preference which is genetically determined.

Let’s be honest – you wouldn’t want Israel to be 80% Ethiopian Jew, either right?

Another of the many flaws in Stephen's thinking is that he imagines a larger US population will mean more of the US with which he is familiar.

He can't grasp the concept that his boosterism is changing the US from what he imagines to something very different.

Another of the many flaws in Stephen’s thinking is that he imagines a larger US population will mean more of the US with which he is familiar.

He can’t grasp the concept that his boosterism is changing the US from what he imagines to something very different.

As evidenced by this quote, he simply doesn’t understand conservatism:

Finally, immigrants — legal or otherwise — make better citizens than native-born Americans. More entrepreneurial. More church-going. Less likely to have kids out of wedlock. Far less likely to commit crime. These are the kind of attributes Republicans claim to admire.

… If anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools, then opposition to immigration is the conservatism of morons.

Conservatism is about conserving things. And you can’t conserve (let alone replenish) a culture via mass immigration by alien races.

Did you know that Africa has about the same population density as the USA? It’s true!

There’s a lot of flyover country in Africa, let me tell you. And it’s not all sacred animal territory, don’t mind that propaganda from NatGeo.

Here’s my plan: put refugees of all sorts in Africa! They just want freedom, I tell you. There are huge swaths of it that nobody is using. Not to mention big places where people have tried to make countries, but failed, like Somalia and Libya.

There are huge swaths of it that nobody is using.

Yes. A friend of mine is doing long-term volunteer work in Tanzania in the agriculture sector. He’s remarked with amazement at the vast quantity of fallow high-quality farmland there.

America is vast, largely empty and often lonely. Roughly 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, covering just 3 percent of the overall landmass. We have a population density of 35 people per square kilometer — as opposed to 212 for Switzerland and 271 for the U.K. We could use some more people. Make that a lot more.

Says who? It sounds pretty arrogant of Stephens to worry about those “lonely” people in the “underpopulated” regions of America, and one wonders if he has any stinking clue exactly how much empty land is required to provide the resources needed to support the overpopulated urban centers of both this country and those other overpopulatd countries, like India, Japan, and the UK.

If the lonely people ever feel like feeling less lonely I don’t think they need any help form Bret Stephens in locating the nearest interstate and packing up to move off to Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, or Mexico City. As it is the movement of native born Americans is almost entirely in the other direction, from expensive and overpopulated cities to smaller cities with greater access to open space and cheaper housing.

It is not the numbers so much as where the immigrants are from.... 95%of the immigrants were from Europe until 1975 , while today just 15% are from Europe

If 90% of the current 45 million immigrants living in the United States were Europeans we would have little concern for reducing immigration.

Good points and totally agree. It was just a given to me that the folks here would understand that the 40+M immigrants today were not ever going to be real Americans they will always be foreigners (aka invaders).

We used to hear similar tough-talk from the Boer farmers of South Africa 20 years ago. They also had lots of guns and ammo. It hasn't done them much good.

Stupid to compare since they never had the population numbers of whites in usa do.

As for “Tough Talk”? Wrong again, it is simply reality speak talk. And if You, anon 352, happen to also be a white American, yet have No firearms or are an antigun Lib type Idiot, it will be folks like you who once it all kicks into gear big time. Are going to realize that in Reality there is no/zero middle ground. And all them fence sitter white idiots will run for safe cover to those savage africans and kosher tribe they so worship Now…Only to find that as a white folk, they will be rejected totally then.

Then, when in desperation those stupid fence sitter whites try to get help and safe harbor from well armed and well provisioned patriot whites, they will get turned away as Traitors, as it should be.

The stupid white fools of that bunch will be hated by and fired upon by both sides, while they run to and fro with their hair on fire similar to mikey jacksons famous Pepsi TV Ad incident.

The people you describe don't exist until (((Big Media))) creates them; they pump out this bilge regardless, until the junkies are created and the addiction established.

That way round doesn’t seem like the most parsimonious explanation. It rests on the assumptions that the NYT doesn’t like money, that people are brainwashed by articles they barely read and that there is some sort of eternal blood grudge.

All of which are improbable.

Naive.

(((Big Media))) manages to do both; make money, AND shape the market. It’s what they do, for God’s sake: advertising, PR, opinion-shaping, opinion-manufacturing, etc.

Just look at what happened with Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ. It didn’t take a genius to see that there was and is a complete drought of faith-and-family-friendly entertainment, but H-Wood, due to their (((cultural blinders))), instead assumed Christian entertainment = fail. Because that’s the reality they want. If they were objective, they’d slow down on the HOLOCAUST flicks, which they’ve released thousands of, and release genuine Christian entertainment instead.

How much did Passion make, again? Half a billion? A billion? What were (((Big Media’s))) copycats, follow-on films to widen the market Passion created, etc? *Crickets chirping*

There are some dollars (((Big Media))) doesn’t want. Just look at all the success Fox News has had, providing a shadow of Conservative-oriented news to consumers. Which was the network to follow in Fox News’ footsteps and try to compete for those dollars? *Crickets chirping*

It's a toss-up between whether she was just naive, or whether she was trying to get sexual favors from immigrants, and she just got in over her head that one time.

There is a huge, sordid, undiscussed sexual element to the whole refugee thing. Many volunteers have been caught sleeping with their charges. It’s comparable to how blacks and mestizos are allowed to be unapologetically masculine and suggests that, if the credulity theorists are right and it’s all just a series of accidents, white men could’ve changed things by being more boorish.

The following numbers are from a quick googling, so feel free to show me that they are wildly innacurate. But it looks like Israel actually does take on a similar ratio of immigrants to native population as the US. Each country adds about 3/10ths of a percent of its today population in legal immigration each year. Even if you wanted to shift the focus to illegal immigration, it doesn't sway the numbers much. Illegals arriving per year in the US add a mere extra tenth of a percent per year, and about the same number have been leaving each year lately.

The charge of hypocrisy on this point seems to me largely unfounded.

What hypocrisy? Israel’s immigrants belong to the diaspora. The interlopers are sterlized or deported.

Multiple regression is a tool that can be used to construct models that account for sources of variance that are captured in other variables, via correlations.

If you want to suggest that multivariate regression could accurately account for how the existing population of California would have reacted had millions of immigrants not arrived, I would love to see the specific technique you propose. And more critically, the data you would use to make the estimates.

It is a child's game to argue that one can or cannot physically construct a model. Of course one can. Is it in any way accurate? Does it have face validity? Does it tell you anything useful?

Your comment about "what is a graduate level statistician" is ridiculously obtuse.

Stephens writes like someone who has never taken a cross country drive. The Ogallala Aquifer has been falling short of it's replenishment rate for decades, so Stephens needs to figure out how places like Lebanaon, Kansas can become a megacitites without adequate aqua before he starts digging.

Anyone who has flown a light plane over Middle America, especially west of the Mississippi, understands why there are large amounts of uninhabited land in the continental US: it’s largely uninhabitable except by very resourceful people in low density environments willing to live without all the stuff bicoastals cannot imagine there not being. They can’t even tolerate small town or suburban living in relatively lush areas.

Kansas, for instance, has almost all of its population east of Wichita, and Wichita is only a third of the way west from the state line. And half of that is a historical artifact of people wanting to be just over the state line from Pendergast’s Kansas City and Jackson County.

Why are Jews afraid of sparsely populated areas? It's an honest question. In the eastern suburbs of Cleveland, there's plenty of cheap land and anyone can have a single-family home. Yet there's a cluster of very large high-rise apartment buildings sticking out like sore thumbs along I-271 that are heavily Jewish. What's up with that?

It’s because they’re all descended from 3000 years’ worth of rabbis. They HAVE to have someone listen to them pontificate or they become depressed and feel worthless.

I find it hilarious that you keep comparing America’s border situation to that of Israel. How are the two countries comparable? Israel is a state surrounded by enemy states that want to destroy it. Conversely, America neighbors Canada and Mexico, two countries that are not only non-belligerent towards the U.S, but also too weak to do anything against America even if they were.

In the case of Israel, it makes sense for them to build a wall and strictly control immigration, since anyone crossing the border is a potential terrorist threat, not to mention that a wall offers some deterrence against military invasion – China building the Great Wall against the Mongols. Conversely, people crossing the border from the south are mostly laborers looking for a better life. Sure, some might be criminals, but you cannot compare that to Israel’s border situation, which is incomparably more serious in terms of threats(not even in the same ball park).

So basically, Israel’s wall was built for *military and defense* reasons. The wall in the U.S is being built for economic reasons. Again, the situations of the two countries are *not* comparable.

You keep using very inappropriate sarcasm to imply that liberal Jews are hypocrites for supporting the border in Israel but not in America. That is sheer idiocy. The situations at the respective borders are completely different between the two countries.

I find it hilarious that you keep comparing America’s border situation to that of Israel. How are the two countries comparable? Israel is a state surrounded by enemy states that want to destroy it. Conversely, America neighbors Canada and Mexico, two countries that are not only non-belligerent towards the U.S, but also too weak to do anything against America even if they were.

We're surrounded by, in the south, an enemy state that wants to destroy us, and in the north, an unreliable ally not up to the task of not destroying us. If Mexico was thwarted in her plan to destroy us peacefully, they'd probably seek other means.

In the case of Israel, it makes sense for them to build a wall and strictly control immigration, since anyone crossing the border is a potential terrorist threat, not to mention that a wall offers some deterrence against military invasion – China building the Great Wall against the Mongols.

In the case of America, it makes sense for us to build a wall and strictly control immigration, since:

1) Controlling their borders is what serious countries do.
2) Demography is destiny, and we don't want to be any more like Latin America than we already are.
3) Importing poverty is stupid.
4) Latin America will not improve if allowed to continually dump their problems on us.
5) If we don't let foreign terrorists in, they can't commit acts of terror on American soil.
6) America is full. We don't need any more people, and half the planet wants to live here.
7) Multiculturalism is the death of diversity.
8) We have a serious drugs problem here, and much of the supply comes over the southern border.
9) The law of supply and demand; mass immigration of labor (and not capital) drives down wages.

P.S. we all know you think it's fine for Israel to do this stuff because you're an anti-White Jewish Supremacist and have two sets of standards, one for Jews, and another for Whites. What we don't know is what it's like to never be able to admit your true motives.

Sure, some might be criminals, but you cannot compare that to Israel’s border situation, which is incomparably more serious in terms of threats(not even in the same ball park).

If we'd treated Blacks and Mestizos the way Jews treat Palestinians, Blacks and Mestizos would probably treat us the way Arabs treat Israelis.

You keep using very inappropriate sarcasm to imply that liberal Jews are hypocrites for supporting the border in Israel but not in America.

I love how Jewish Supremacists (like you, Nazi Dick Nick Diaz) seem to think that the goyim are all far too obtuse to notice that the world is filled with non-Arabs/non-Muslims who pose 0 terrorist threat to Israel, would LOOOOVE to move there, and are not allowed to immigrate to Israel.

What's the Jews' excuse for keeping them out? Israeli Jews obviously think they have plenty of room; their birthrate is the highest in the developed world.

(The whole "goyim are morons, speak to them as such" routine from Jews is a big reason for counter-semitism)

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

you have to be honest with yourself and say that it’s not that America is “too crowded” (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life . . .

Jack, you’re one of the more interesting commenters here, but you’re off base on this one. You’re suggesting that the use of “too” implies a higher-than-average degree of something, whereas it much more commonly means an undesirably high degree of something.

If the most desirable amount of something (whatever that happens to be) is obtainable, but you are grossly exceeding that figure, than there’s nothing dishonest about using “too.”

A: “It’s too hot to go hiking today.”

B: “You’re not being honest with yourself; there are a lot of nice places to live which are hotter.”

Person A is not implying that their current location is hotter than the average place, or even “nice place.” He is suggesting that hiking would be more pleasant on a cooler day.

Why are Jews afraid of sparsely populated areas? It's an honest question. In the eastern suburbs of Cleveland, there's plenty of cheap land and anyone can have a single-family home. Yet there's a cluster of very large high-rise apartment buildings sticking out like sore thumbs along I-271 that are heavily Jewish. What's up with that?

Open spaces can bring to the fore physical prowess, making for a habitat in which Jews are relatively disadvantaged compared to European Gentiles. Physical attributes such as foot speed, eye-hand coordination, far-sightedness, and strength have less purchase in dense urban environments.

Indeed. And now most of the UK's less densely populated offshoots - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA - are richer than the UK itself. All of them have far greater natural resources, per capita, to draw on for economic wealth than the UK does, and natural resources are (and probably always will be) a limiting factor in economic production. When they become scarce their value goes up, and those countries that own them grow richer. The only Middle Eastern nations ever to make it into the world's richest have done so only thanks to their oil wealth.

If you look at the richest countries per capita in the world they are basically either (a) tiny little city states that are often tax havens (Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, San Marino, etc; or (b) the least densely populated countries with European-descended populations. I don't know about you, but I never would have guessed that Australia was richer than Germany, France, Japan, Israel, South Korea and Italy. Never.

Many or most Latin American countries are allegedly majority white. I have no idea the extent to which that is actually true or the extent to which those white populations include Indio admixture, but either way, for some reason, Latin American countries just plain damn don't do well. Their people are poor and their governments are corrupt.

The keys to maintaining a wealthy nation seem to be:1) keep your population density low2) keep your population European3) keep your population non-Latin

If Bret Stephens can come up with any significant counter-examples I would be more than happy to listen to him, even though he probably will have already had me deported by the time he can find one.

Your emphasised surprise at Australia’s wealth and standard of living would surely be very surprising for anyone who has any general knowledge of the wider world .
Australia has been at the top end of wealth per capita lists since early in it’s settled history -say early 19th century .

Look it up if you doubt this . I am regularly amazed how a very limited knowledge of the wider world is so very common among Americans who are quite well read on US topics

Good observation, Mr. Anon, about Stephens being a “climate denier.” I predict that he will find an opportunity/excuse to mitigate that position, or change it entirely, in the future.

You’re right that people don’t really care about the climate issue—except (I would qualify) as a badge of “elite opinion.” The more a position becomes deemed déclassé, the less our elites want to be associated with it. The arguments they marshal in support of any position are mostly fungible, and can be replaced or redirected by the disclosure of one “new” “fact” that suddenly persuades the former heretic of the deep truth of “elite” orthodoxy.

That fact that the change of opinion is accompanied by “strange new respect” and invitations to better parties is the carrot elite institutions deploy, and that Stephens, Brooks, and others are eager to snatch up.

That fact that the change of opinion is accompanied by “strange new respect” and invitations to better parties is the carrot elite institutions deploy, and that Stephens, Brooks, and others are eager to snatch up.

Stephens and Brooks don’t have to suck up to elite media opinion. They ARE elite media opinion.

How about comparing US population to 3 for Australia or 15.5 for Norway?

UK, Japan, Switzerland couldn’t feed their own nations, not to mention that they don’t have enough natural resources and have to rely on imports.

Switzerland is extremely protective of its agricultural industry. High tariffs and extensive domestic subsidisations encourage domestic production, which currently produces about 60% of the food consumed in the country.

If these nations had to rely on their own resources almost half of their population would die of starvation.
Which means that other countries, either extremely poor or sparsely populated (Argentina, Brazil, Russia) and rich (US, Canada, Australia), provide resources in exchange for wealth and money.

Why would any sane person (white, black or pink) want to deprive their own children and next generations and share resources with strangers? Should Indians be thankful for the opportunity to share land with 325 million Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Whites?

It's a toss-up between whether she was just naive, or whether she was trying to get sexual favors from immigrants, and she just got in over her head that one time.

Most of these women helping and supporting influx of refugees just want to be oppressed, dominated and feel “the real” man. Most White Europeans or Americans are not allowed to be men, to do what men are supposed to do, masculinity and traditional male/female roles are ridiculed and destroyed by the left.
And man who stands out even elitist billionaire risks being punished, crushed by feminists and their lobby an ostracized by society. Even rich and successful White males have to constantly apologize, virtue-signal and so on.

To the low-end southwestern suburbs as well as Rockford and Dubuque out west. They’ve also shipped a good deal to Peoria and Springfield. I’ve also read that many went back to the southern states as well.

Vast majority of locals in Dubuque are most unhappy with their new neighbors and the local fish wrapper (Telegraph Herald) devotes ink to explaining to them that the new arrivals really are wonderful and how great it is that Dubuque is finally (!) getting some diversity.

Iowa newspapers, incl DM Register and CR Gazette, are extremely far left and to be avoided at all costs.

Truly democratic republics ALL have fewer than 100k per representative. I think the WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) average I calculated in that article was 89k per rep. That means a House of Representatives at least 3200 in size if we go for 100k per rep.

The people opposing this would be the representatives from Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, who would lose relative strength in the electoral college. Right now, with 579k people, 1/500th of the population, Wyoming has 3/535 of the electoral votes, or 1/178 of them, and almost 3-1 advantage, while a resident of Kollivornia has a much smaller effect on the electoral vote. If Wyoming went to 6 representatives under a 100k plan, then it would have 1/412th of a Congress with 3200 representatives, and the same percentage of the electoral vote.

Clean up the voter rolls and voting procedures before worrying about such esoterica.

Your emphasised surprise at Australia's wealth and standard of living would surely be very surprising for anyone who has any general knowledge of the wider world .
Australia has been at the top end of wealth per capita lists since early in it's settled history -say early 19th century .

Look it up if you doubt this . I am regularly amazed how a very limited knowledge of the wider world is so very common among Americans who are quite well read on US topics

I’m not shocked that Australia is well-off. Of course it is. I’m shocked that it’s ahead of countries like Japan and Germany.

Truly democratic republics ALL have fewer than 100k per representative. I think the WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) average I calculated in that article was 89k per rep. That means a House of Representatives at least 3200 in size if we go for 100k per rep.

The people opposing this would be the representatives from Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, who would lose relative strength in the electoral college. Right now, with 579k people, 1/500th of the population, Wyoming has 3/535 of the electoral votes, or 1/178 of them, and almost 3-1 advantage, while a resident of Kollivornia has a much smaller effect on the electoral vote. If Wyoming went to 6 representatives under a 100k plan, then it would have 1/412th of a Congress with 3200 representatives, and the same percentage of the electoral vote.

Good point…Ideally we should have to have 1 rep per every 100K citizens.

You must be, to claim Israel is taking in LOTS of immigrants. The only immigrants they take in are Jews who want or need to flee their current nation, for various reasons. The ones that aren’t going to Apartheid Israel are the ones Zionist Jews terrorized off their native lands in 1948, like the murdered inhabitants of Deir Yassin.

Now about those blacks that Israelis are demanding Netenyahu get out of their paradise. Guess it’s OK for Jews to chastise and bully other nations to accepting millions of illegals, but when it comes to your beloved Israel, why that’s different and to suggest otherwise is anti-Semitic. Right?

Isn't that just something people say? It is a throwaway comment to pretend that they have a reason for believing what they think they should.

Are they really stupid to see a category as an individual? That is exactly as stupid as seeing an individual as a category.

NYT readers around here have never seen an illegal in their lives except as some guy their contractor hired. Also NYT sells mostly based on prestige and branding– “You read the Times? You must be one of us.”

If I were to rent out the spare bedroom not to one or two new immigrants who speak no English and come from a foreign culture, but to ten such, and then to twenty such more, think how much richer I would be, what with all that money from rent; and how much better would be my life—not to mention the lives of my family, and the lives of our neighbors, too!

We don’t need any more immigrants, period. 330 million is quite enough. No, migrants are not “better” than natives, especially after a generation or two. And the robots are coming, they will take the low-skilled jobs first. If nations are judged by population, India is king.Japan does great with essentially zero immigration.

Guh...imagine a paper with both Bret Stephens and David Brooks on its op-ed pages. And some of you wonder why so many of us despise Republicans.

Dante cleverly devised various grades of Hell tailored to the kinds of villainy that their inhabitants had committed while in earthly life.

If Dante should expand his hellish categories, there will be one for Bret Stephens and people who advocate as he does:

It will contain wall-to-wall people. No empty spaces. No way to escape from the noise and crowding. Nowhere to be alone with one’s thoughts.

Stephens lives on the 277th floor of a highrise with three dozen apartments on each floor, and scenic views of hundreds of other residential towers. When he ventures out of his flat of Tokyo-like dimensions, he occasionally hears a few words in a language he understands.

Bret Stephens will be forced to write 25,000 words a day for the New York Times but no one will pay the slightest attention to what he says.

I find it hilarious that you keep comparing America's border situation to that of Israel. How are the two countries comparable? Israel is a state surrounded by enemy states that want to destroy it. Conversely, America neighbors Canada and Mexico, two countries that are not only non-belligerent towards the U.S, but also too weak to do anything against America even if they were.

In the case of Israel, it makes sense for them to build a wall and strictly control immigration, since anyone crossing the border is a potential terrorist threat, not to mention that a wall offers some deterrence against military invasion - China building the Great Wall against the Mongols. Conversely, people crossing the border from the south are mostly laborers looking for a better life. Sure, some might be criminals, but you cannot compare that to Israel's border situation, which is incomparably more serious in terms of threats(not even in the same ball park).

So basically, Israel's wall was built for *military and defense* reasons. The wall in the U.S is being built for economic reasons. Again, the situations of the two countries are *not* comparable.

You keep using very inappropriate sarcasm to imply that liberal Jews are hypocrites for supporting the border in Israel but not in America. That is sheer idiocy. The situations at the respective borders are completely different between the two countries.

I find it hilarious that you keep comparing America’s border situation to that of Israel. How are the two countries comparable? Israel is a state surrounded by enemy states that want to destroy it. Conversely, America neighbors Canada and Mexico, two countries that are not only non-belligerent towards the U.S, but also too weak to do anything against America even if they were.

We’re surrounded by, in the south, an enemy state that wants to destroy us, and in the north, an unreliable ally not up to the task of not destroying us. If Mexico was thwarted in her plan to destroy us peacefully, they’d probably seek other means.

In the case of Israel, it makes sense for them to build a wall and strictly control immigration, since anyone crossing the border is a potential terrorist threat, not to mention that a wall offers some deterrence against military invasion – China building the Great Wall against the Mongols.

In the case of America, it makes sense for us to build a wall and strictly control immigration, since:

1) Controlling their borders is what serious countries do.
2) Demography is destiny, and we don’t want to be any more like Latin America than we already are.
3) Importing poverty is stupid.
4) Latin America will not improve if allowed to continually dump their problems on us.
5) If we don’t let foreign terrorists in, they can’t commit acts of terror on American soil.
6) America is full. We don’t need any more people, and half the planet wants to live here.
7) Multiculturalism is the death of diversity.
8) We have a serious drugs problem here, and much of the supply comes over the southern border.
9) The law of supply and demand; mass immigration of labor (and not capital) drives down wages.

P.S. we all know you think it’s fine for Israel to do this stuff because you’re an anti-White Jewish Supremacist and have two sets of standards, one for Jews, and another for Whites. What we don’t know is what it’s like to never be able to admit your true motives.

Sure, some might be criminals, but you cannot compare that to Israel’s border situation, which is incomparably more serious in terms of threats(not even in the same ball park).

If we’d treated Blacks and Mestizos the way Jews treat Palestinians, Blacks and Mestizos would probably treat us the way Arabs treat Israelis.

You keep using very inappropriate sarcasm to imply that liberal Jews are hypocrites for supporting the border in Israel but not in America.

I find it hilarious that you keep comparing America's border situation to that of Israel. How are the two countries comparable? Israel is a state surrounded by enemy states that want to destroy it. Conversely, America neighbors Canada and Mexico, two countries that are not only non-belligerent towards the U.S, but also too weak to do anything against America even if they were.

In the case of Israel, it makes sense for them to build a wall and strictly control immigration, since anyone crossing the border is a potential terrorist threat, not to mention that a wall offers some deterrence against military invasion - China building the Great Wall against the Mongols. Conversely, people crossing the border from the south are mostly laborers looking for a better life. Sure, some might be criminals, but you cannot compare that to Israel's border situation, which is incomparably more serious in terms of threats(not even in the same ball park).

So basically, Israel's wall was built for *military and defense* reasons. The wall in the U.S is being built for economic reasons. Again, the situations of the two countries are *not* comparable.

You keep using very inappropriate sarcasm to imply that liberal Jews are hypocrites for supporting the border in Israel but not in America. That is sheer idiocy. The situations at the respective borders are completely different between the two countries.

I love how Jewish Supremacists (like you, Nazi Dick Nick Diaz) seem to think that the goyim are all far too obtuse to notice that the world is filled with non-Arabs/non-Muslims who pose 0 terrorist threat to Israel, would LOOOOVE to move there, and are not allowed to immigrate to Israel.

What’s the Jews’ excuse for keeping them out? Israeli Jews obviously think they have plenty of room; their birthrate is the highest in the developed world.

(The whole “goyim are morons, speak to them as such” routine from Jews is a big reason for counter-semitism)

So no more kvetching about Israel not taking it’s fair share of immigrants. Israel has lots of immigrants.

And Israel’s immigrants are very diverse. Some are from Minsk, while others are from Pinsk.

And not all of Israel’s immigrants are distant relatives of Ariel Sharon. Some of them are distant inlaws of Ariel Sharon.

You do know little about Israel.

I’ve been in Israel many times. I have not been in places more physically (in terms of external appearance) diverse than Israel.

At the same time, the country clearly has very unusual (religious based) Jewish Law of Return system immigration, on top of the pre-1948 population multi-religious population.

These factors are not incompatible, and writing the above quote shows how you can misled people can be who spend all their lives absorbing information on the internet, without ever visiting the countries themselves.

If you want to talk about homogenous, in terms of immigration countries, you would need to look at a country which is not completely multi-coloured (as Israel is, the moment you walk along the street, and feel like you can see every different race in the world – including of course a lot of non-citizen immigrants everywhere).

America is way, way, way, waaaaay more diverse than Israel. Israel isn't even as diverse as America was in 1965. Jews are still demanding more, more, more diversity for America, but somehow, their homeland, which is less diverse than America in 1965 (WHITE BREAD CITY, OMG HIDEOUSLY WHITE REEE), is just fine on the diversity score.

If Americans managed to create a White Nationalist ethnostate using the White population of the USA, it would be more diverse than Israel. There is more diversity between autochthonous Irish and Italians and Russians than between Israeli groups.

Putting aside the whole immigrant thing, I have to say that Stephens is right about America being mostly empty. We have a few big cities along the coasts and a few scattered inland, but for the most part the place looks really really empty. A lot of America has a sort of half-finished look as if the wave of settlement started but never quite finished. When you drive coast to coast, once you get maybe 60 miles inland you see more cattle than people for the next 2,000 miles. And when there are cities, they are a lot smaller than they could be without a lot of stress - why couldn't Wichita or Tulsa have as many people as Austin?

I think at the bottom what people here don't want is not more immigrants but more immigrants from alien cultures. If there were 10 million Brits and Germans who wanted to settle the interior of the country instead of Central Americans and Asians or if white people wanted to have 3 kids/family instead of less than 2, I don't think we would be hearing the same objections to increased population. I fully understand this (and don't consider it to be "racist") but you have to be honest with yourself and say that it's not that America is "too crowded" (when objectively it is a lot less crowded than many European countries with high quality of life, it's that you don't want more people WITH A DIFFERENT CULTURE coming here. But this is separate (though as a practical matter inseparable) from the question of whether America is too crowded (away from the coasts).

I have to say that [some a-hole] is right about America being mostly empty.

Then fill it with your kids; not the marginal characters he wants to impose upon you.

The world’s problems would be much much easier to tackle with fewer people around:

) climate change pretty much means we have too many people.

) pollution and its attendant regulation is a whole lot milder with fewer people around.

) whenever you hear, “drought”, that means “too many people for the rainfall”.

) most civil conflicts; refugees; and migrant flows are from clashes over resources. This spreads people to the currently “nice” places and hastens the day they have civil clashes. More people = more conflicts. Amateurs think tactics; professionals think logistics.

So no more kvetching about Israel not taking it’s fair share of immigrants. Israel has lots of immigrants.

And Israel’s immigrants are very diverse. Some are from Minsk, while others are from Pinsk.

And not all of Israel’s immigrants are distant relatives of Ariel Sharon. Some of them are distant inlaws of Ariel Sharon.

You do know little about Israel.

I've been in Israel many times. I have not been in places more physically (in terms of external appearance) diverse than Israel.

At the same time, the country clearly has very unusual (religious based) Jewish Law of Return system immigration, on top of the pre-1948 population multi-religious population.

These factors are not incompatible, and writing the above quote shows how you can misled people can be who spend all their lives absorbing information on the internet, without ever visiting the countries themselves.

If you want to talk about homogenous, in terms of immigration countries, you would need to look at a country which is not completely multi-coloured (as Israel is, the moment you walk along the street, and feel like you can see every different race in the world - including of course a lot of non-citizen immigrants everywhere).

America is way, way, way, waaaaay more diverse than Israel. Israel isn’t even as diverse as America was in 1965. Jews are still demanding more, more, more diversity for America, but somehow, their homeland, which is less diverse than America in 1965 (WHITE BREAD CITY, OMG HIDEOUSLY WHITE REEE), is just fine on the diversity score.

If Americans managed to create a White Nationalist ethnostate using the White population of the USA, it would be more diverse than Israel. There is more diversity between autochthonous Irish and Italians and Russians than between Israeli groups.

A person who does not know about a country telling about this country to people (in this case, myself) who know the country very well and on a personal level. This seems a common American personality trait and the key to their fake news.

As one Peter Schaeffer notably and simply demonstrated on another blog, the migrants can't even cover their own Medicaid costs.

$12 per hour per worker. God bless Peter Schaeffer. And, wow, did God ever make the numbers ripe for the picking! Three trillion dollars divided by 250 billions hours. Wow — those numbers are easy to work with and remember!

What are you saying? That such things can't be modeled? Can't be estimated?

What's a "graduate level statistician" anyway, and are you referring to yourself?

I’ve no interest in a Laputan argument about semantics.

Multiple regression is a tool that can be used to construct models that account for sources of variance that are captured in other variables, via correlations.

If you want to suggest that multivariate regression could accurately account for how the existing population of California would have reacted had millions of immigrants not arrived, I would love to see the specific technique you propose. And more critically, the data you would use to make the estimates.

It is a child’s game to argue that one can or cannot physically construct a model. Of course one can. Is it in any way accurate? Does it have face validity? Does it tell you anything useful?

Your comment about “what is a graduate level statistician” is ridiculously obtuse.

If you want to suggest that multivariate regression could accurately account for how the existing population of California would have reacted had millions of immigrants not arrived, I would love to see the specific technique you propose.

Well, you could start with a two-equation structural model like

c = b0 + b1*a + b2*f + e1a = g0 + g1*c + e2

where c = cost of housing, a = American population (residing in California), f = foreign population, the e's are error terms, and the other symbols — b0, b1...g0... — are constants. Use substitution to obtain a single equation and estimate the constants by your choice of method — least squares for instance.

You should be able to easily obtain time series data for a, f and c.

That's a start for you. Do no more than this, and you have yourself a nice little term paper for an undergraduate econometrics course. But you can refine the model, go in different directions with how you estimate the parameters, exercise more or less care in how you model the errors, etc.

Vast majority of locals in Dubuque are most unhappy with their new neighbors and the local fish wrapper (Telegraph Herald) devotes ink to explaining to them that the new arrivals really are wonderful and how great it is that Dubuque is finally (!) getting some diversity.

Iowa newspapers, incl DM Register and CR Gazette, are extremely far left and to be avoided at all costs.

I’ve visited there and felt unsafe to walk along the riverfront and downtown after dark.

Multiple regression is a tool that can be used to construct models that account for sources of variance that are captured in other variables, via correlations.

If you want to suggest that multivariate regression could accurately account for how the existing population of California would have reacted had millions of immigrants not arrived, I would love to see the specific technique you propose. And more critically, the data you would use to make the estimates.

It is a child's game to argue that one can or cannot physically construct a model. Of course one can. Is it in any way accurate? Does it have face validity? Does it tell you anything useful?

Your comment about "what is a graduate level statistician" is ridiculously obtuse.

If you want to suggest that multivariate regression could accurately account for how the existing population of California would have reacted had millions of immigrants not arrived, I would love to see the specific technique you propose.

Well, you could start with a two-equation structural model like

c = b0 + b1*a + b2*f + e1
a = g0 + g1*c + e2

where c = cost of housing, a = American population (residing in California), f = foreign population, the e’s are error terms, and the other symbols — b0, b1…g0… — are constants. Use substitution to obtain a single equation and estimate the constants by your choice of method — least squares for instance.

You should be able to easily obtain time series data for a, f and c.

That’s a start for you. Do no more than this, and you have yourself a nice little term paper for an undergraduate econometrics course. But you can refine the model, go in different directions with how you estimate the parameters, exercise more or less care in how you model the errors, etc.

America is way, way, way, waaaaay more diverse than Israel. Israel isn't even as diverse as America was in 1965. Jews are still demanding more, more, more diversity for America, but somehow, their homeland, which is less diverse than America in 1965 (WHITE BREAD CITY, OMG HIDEOUSLY WHITE REEE), is just fine on the diversity score.

If Americans managed to create a White Nationalist ethnostate using the White population of the USA, it would be more diverse than Israel. There is more diversity between autochthonous Irish and Italians and Russians than between Israeli groups.

A person who does not know about a country telling about this country to people (in this case, myself) who know the country very well and on a personal level. This seems a common American personality trait and the key to their fake news.

A person who does not know about a country telling about this country to people (in this case, myself) who know the country very well and on a personal level. This seems a common American personality trait and the key to their fake news.

Jews love posting pictures to "prove" Israel's "diversity," lol (wish I had $5 for every Twitter Jew who tried this juvenile nonsense on me). Why doesn't the GoI cram all 100k (or whatever) non-Whites in Israel into one photo? You guys would get endless use out of it...

A lot of Jews have what seems to be a congenital defect that forces them to act as though they're addressing not-particularly-bright children.

P.S., for those who didn't know: Israel got caught sterilizing Black immigrant women without their knowledge or consent.

A person who does not know about a country telling about this country to people (in this case, myself) who know the country very well and on a personal level. This seems a common American personality trait and the key to their fake news.

(In my opinion, despite liking multinationalism - it is too multicoloured and multicultural as a country).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7_O4kPux8E

A person who does not know about a country telling about this country to people (in this case, myself) who know the country very well and on a personal level. This seems a common American personality trait and the key to their fake news.

Jews love posting pictures to “prove” Israel’s “diversity,” lol (wish I had $5 for every Twitter Jew who tried this juvenile nonsense on me). Why doesn’t the GoI cram all 100k (or whatever) non-Whites in Israel into one photo? You guys would get endless use out of it…

A lot of Jews have what seems to be a congenital defect that forces them to act as though they’re addressing not-particularly-bright children.

P.S., for those who didn’t know: Israel got caught sterilizing Black immigrant women without their knowledge or consent.

A person who does not know about a country telling about this country to people (in this case, myself) who know the country very well and on a personal level. This seems a common American personality trait and the key to their fake news.

Jews love posting pictures to "prove" Israel's "diversity," lol (wish I had $5 for every Twitter Jew who tried this juvenile nonsense on me). Why doesn't the GoI cram all 100k (or whatever) non-Whites in Israel into one photo? You guys would get endless use out of it...

A lot of Jews have what seems to be a congenital defect that forces them to act as though they're addressing not-particularly-bright children.

P.S., for those who didn't know: Israel got caught sterilizing Black immigrant women without their knowledge or consent.

Lol, if Dmitry had ever been to a Sicilian-American neighborhood (or a Mexican-American neighborhood) he would not be so awed by Israel’s “color diversity”.

It's silly. Even autochthonous European populations are home to the skin tone, eye color, hair color, etc., diversity that Dmitry is talking about, which Jews call boring stale whitebread undiversity, until Jews do it, then suddenly it's "diverse" enough for Jewish standards.

There's more genetic distance between Irish and Serb than between Jewish populations in Israel. There's far more difference between Whites and Blacks (the latter being the most salient LARGE American minority) and Jews and Palestinians. Jews and Palestinians can routinely pass for one another.

Lol, if Dmitry had ever been to a Sicilian-American neighborhood (or a Mexican-American neighborhood) he would not be so awed by Israel's "color diversity".

It’s silly. Even autochthonous European populations are home to the skin tone, eye color, hair color, etc., diversity that Dmitry is talking about, which Jews call boring stale whitebread undiversity, until Jews do it, then suddenly it’s “diverse” enough for Jewish standards.

There’s more genetic distance between Irish and Serb than between Jewish populations in Israel. There’s far more difference between Whites and Blacks (the latter being the most salient LARGE American minority) and Jews and Palestinians. Jews and Palestinians can routinely pass for one another.